Annexe 1
associates
burroughs
michael
93 Hampton Road Hampton Hill TW12 1JQ
020 8943 8800 [email protected] 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Annexe 2
associates
burroughs
michael
93 Hampton Road Hampton Hill TW12 1JQ
020 8943 8800 [email protected] 10
Town & Country Planning Act 1990
Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Appeal by
THE HYDRA BUILDING, 10 HARDWICK STREET, ISLINGTON, LONDON, EC1R 4UG
REFERENCES:
Council Reference: P2017/1166/FUL
Written Representation
Appendices to Appellant Statement
December 2017
Stephen Levrant : Heritage Architecture Ltd 62 British Grove London W4 2NL T 020 8748 5501; F 020 8748 4992; E [email protected]
11 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HA APPENDIX 1: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECT HOUSE AND SITE ...... 3 HA APPENDIX 2: MAP REGRESSION ...... 5 HA APPENDIX 3: HISTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NEW RIVER CONSERVATION AREA ...... 18 New River Conservation Area ...... 18 Historic development of New River Conservation Area...... 18 Important Views within the Immediate Area ...... 18 Key Heritage Assets within the Immediate Area ...... 19 Prevailing & Former Uses within the Area...... 19 Townscape of the Area ...... 20 Prevalent and Traditional Building Materials ...... 20 HA APPENDIX 4: SCHEDULE OF LISTED BUILDINGS IN THE AREA ...... 22 Introduction – Listed Buildings ...... 23 HA APPENDIX 5: SIGNIFICANCE APPRAISAL - ...... 38 Conclusions ...... 39 HA APPENDIX 6: APPRAISAL OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SUBJECT SITE TO THE CONSERVATION AREA ...... 40 HA APPENDIX 7: VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 41 HA APPENDIX 8: IMPACT ON EACH LISTED BUILDING ...... 42 HA APPENDIX 9: MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY BUILDINGS IN THE VICINITY ...... 43 APPENDIX 10: VERIFIED VIEWS AND METHODOLOGY ...... 49
2 12 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
HA APPENDIX 1: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECT HOUSE AND SITE A development of the properties at the New River Head Site is delineated below:
1600-Proposal by Edmund Colthurst to bring water from the river Lea in Hertfordshire
1609-13- Construction of the New River from Amwell Springs near Ware to Islington
1611- King James I provides half funding for New River works
1613- Round pond and Water House ‘Cestern House’ constructed by Stephen Boone
1631- King Charles I sold the Crown’s shares for a fixed annual due to poor profits by the New River Company
Late 17th Century- Outer pond for overflow completed
1701- Sir Christopher Wren advises against the use of a pumping engine
1707- Windmill constructed at the site on the designs of George Sorocold
1708- Upper Pond completed in Claremont square for better pressure head and to be able to supply fresh water to growing number of customers in the West End
1730- Outer Cistern house constructed
1768- New River Engine House built to designs by John Smeaton; Steam engine operational
1770-80- Much of the timber palisade boundary walls replaced by brick walls
1779-80- West Pond constructed
1778-89- Water house enlarged by Robert Mylne
1805- St John’s Street reservoir constructed near Sadler’s Well Theatre
1805- Brick perimeter wall on Myddelton passage completed
1811- Replacing of original timber pipes of the New River with Cast Iron pipes.
1818-20- Eastern wings added to the Water House by W.C. Mylne
1820- Headquarters of the New River Company moved to the New River Head site
1854-56- Providing the ponds with iron revetments, and covering of the ponds to suit new regulations, as per designs by Mylne. Building works undertaken by George Mansfield and Son
1902-04- Formation of the Metropolitan water board and taking over of private companies
1911-13- Devil’s conduit relocated and reconstructed at the site
1914- Round pond closed
1915-20- Metropolitan water board offices constructed to the designs of H. Austen Hall
1922-24- No. 9 Hardwick street constructed as a lab for testing water
3 13 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
1936-38- Laboratory building constructed to the designs of John Murray Easton
1946- Last filter beds taken out from the site and New River terminated at Stoke Newington
1964-66- Charles Allen House built as per designs of J.F. Hearsum to house staff
1973-74- Metropolitan Water Board abolished and Thames Water established
1987- Thames Water moved its headquarters to Reading
1989- Thames Water privatised
2001-03- Nautilus building by Nicholson GDA architects is built; Hydra building is built on Hardwick Street
4 14 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
HA APPENDIX 2: MAP REGRESSION
Seventeenth Century New River
This early document shows the Inner pond (constructed 1613), the Outer ponds (constructed subsequently in the 17th Century) and the New Pond (possibly the Upper pond at Claremont square) shown to be 13 chains and 20 links north of the walled New River Head Compound. Sadler’s Wells theatre, established in the 17th century is seen to the east just north of the New River stream. The location of the subject site is shown to be vacant with the existence of a small building to its immediate east. The Water House, which comprised of the Company offices are seen immediately south of the Inner Pond. The Windmill, constructed on the designs of George Sorocer is seen to the NW of the outer ponds. The Engine house was built a few years later and therefore does not find mention in this plan. Two wells- Sadlers Well and Tunbrige Well are seen in the vicinity E and SE of the Round Pond respectively.
Interestingly, no other development is seen in area, with most area surrounding the site being relegated to use as fields. However, to the NE, Angel Inn is seen at the extremity towards Islington Town. Most of the residential development in the area dates from the early and mid-19th Century.
Figure 1: Plan of the New River Head site dating from 1753
5 15 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017
Subject Building Conservation Area Boundary
Figure 2: OS Map of the St. James Clerkenwell Precinct dating from 1874 The map is superimposed with the New River Head Conservation Area Boundary (marked in Red). Within a century from the previous map, rapid development is seen in the area, transforming it from a countryside north of the City of London to a well developed part of the city. Housing estates are laid out around well planned squares. St John Street appears to be the main thoroughfare in the North-south direction, while the arterial Rosebery avenue is still not planned. The railway line is seen on the west. Much of the Terraces on Amwell Street were constructed by W.C. Mylne in the 1820s-30s whereas properties on Myddelton and Lloyd square were developed around the same time.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd p6 of 49 16 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017
Subject Building Conservation Area Boundary
Figure 3: OS Map of the St. James Clerkenwell Precinct dating from the 1896 The map is superimposed with the New River Head Conservation Area Boundary (marked in Red). Rosebery avenue seen to the south of the subject site connected Holborn with Islington and was built between 1887-92. This resulted in the redevelopment of many areas on the sides of the newly planned avenue including the construction of Finsbury Town Hall. Since the area had largely been built up by 1870s, very little changes are noticeable in the overall urban fabric in the intervening period.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd p7 of 49 17 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017
Subject Building Conservation Area Boundary
Figure 4: OS Map of the St. James Clerkenwell Precinct dating from 1916 The map is superimposed with the New River Head Conservation Area Boundary (marked in Red). The New River Head site still retains its 18th Century form with the inner (round) and outer ponds, the Water House (demolished before 1914), Engine house, Windmill base and other outlying buildings. The iconic Charles Rowan building is still not constructed. However two buildings (of unknown function) are seen on the subject site (marked in blue)
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd p8 of 49 18 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017
Subject Building Conservation Area Boundary
Figure 5: OS Map of the St. James Clerkenwell Precinct dating from 1954 The map is superimposed with the New River Head Conservation Area Boundary (marked in Red). Much transformation is seen at the site and within the larger area over the last four decades since 1910. The New River Head building (constructed between 1915-20) replaced the 17th C Water house. The round pond was closed in 1912 and the termination of New River at Stoke Newington lead to the closure of the other ponds in 1946. In 1922-24, No. 9 Hardwick Street was built, and in c.1938, the Laboratory Building was built. Charles Rowan house, W of the subject site was built in 1928-30. A number of buildings in the area were damaged by bombing during the war and were redeveloped in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Terraces North of Myddelton passage were redeveloped during this period as were buildings south of Hardwick Street. Sadler’s Well Theatre is seen as undergoing redevelopment during that period. Additionally, a large area E of New River head is demolished and converted into the Spa Green gardens.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd p9 of 49 19 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017
Subject Building Conservation Area Boundary
Figure 6: OS Map of the St. James Clerkenwell Precinct dating from 1962 The map is superimposed with the New River Head Conservation Area Boundary (marked in Red). Within the New River Head area, only the western most tank survives of the three while only part of the revetment of round pond is seen north of New River Head. Little other development is seen in the intervening decade from the 1950s.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd p10 of 49 20 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 7: Thornton New & Complete History and Survey of London and Westminster 1796
The site of New River Head is visible in the foreground with the round pond and the Outer pond. The Water works building is also seen as a two-storeyed structure just next to the Round Pond. Moreover, since it is from 1796, both the Engine house and the Windmill are seen in this image. Claremont Square reservoir is seen in the foreground. The approximate location of the present site is marked in red.
11 21 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 8: Detail of New River Head site from 1874 OS Map, showing the original 17th C Water House, the Round Figure 9: Detail of the New River Head from an OS Map dated 1896. Though the site itself remains relatively pond and Outer ponds, the engine house and other buildings are seen in this view. The site of Charles Rowan House is unchanged, large scale urban transformation is seen to the SE of the precinct, caused by the construction of Rosebery occupied by a group of terrace houses. Rosebery avenue has not yet been planned and the area south of New River Avenue. Head is still occupied by terrace houses. The site of Hydra building shows the construction of a small ‘urinal’ toilets, facing Hardwick Street, while the earlier The site of Hydra Building is largely vacant with the inclusion of a small tank. tank has been slightly modified.
12 22 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 10: Seen in an OS map dating from c.1920, the New River Head Water house, constructed in 1914-15 Figure 11: Bomb damage map of the New River Head precinct, showing the site prior to 1936 (Laboratory building dominates the site, having been built up over the round pond. More development is also seen to the West of the site, not shown). Charles Rowan House built in the 1920s is seen to the west, whereas, the early 1920s Edwardian even prior to the construction of Charles Rowan House. buildings to the south of Hardwick Street (which has now been significantly widened) are also seen.
An additional building is seen built to the SW of the site, where Hydra building presently stands. An urban reconfiguration SW of the site is seen, part of which included the construction of Charles Rowan house, St Paul terrace to the W side of Amwell Road.
The site of Hydra building, where a previous building was standing has been color coded to show total destruction to a portion, with minor damage to the sides. Nos 5-8 Hardwick Street also seen to have suffered some damage from the bombing.
13 23 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 12: An OS Map from 1953 shows some additional buildings within the New River Head site, especially on the Figure 13: Dating from c.1970, new development is seen both within and in the immediate vicinity of the site. Charles site of the present Hydra building. A ‘platform’ is shown to exist at this site. Allen house built in the mid-1960s is seen W of the Engine house and the Windmill base. The outer pond ‘filtering beds’ have been infilled and the laboratory building and gardens are seen in this plan. This Terraces to the SE of Rosebery avenue have been replaced, while those N of the site on river street have been subject was built in 1936-38. to alterations. To the north of the New River Head, substantive changes to terraces on Myddelton passage have resulted in transformation on all sides of the site. Sadlers Wells Theatre appears to have been redeveloped.
14 24 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Historic and Contemporary views of the New River Head Area
Figure 14: In this view of the New River Head from 1952, the site (indicated in red and inset below) is scarcely built up, the previous structure having been damaged in the war. A single storeyed building Figure 15: A contemporary view showing the subject site, as built up with Hydra Building. Having been occupying part of the site appears to be a shed or other storage building, A two storied house is seen developed in the 21st Century, the building relates with the streetscape and not with the New River immediately north of it, but no traces of it exist today. The subject site relates with the New River Head compound. This view also reveals the extent of change and transformation effected on the area compound, of which it is a part. immediately around the New River Head.
15 25 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 17: A contemporary view showing the subject site, as built up with Hydra Building. Having been Figure 16: In this view of the New River Head from 1952, the site (indicated in red and inset below) is scarcely built up, the previous structure having been damaged in the war. A single storeyed building developed in the 21st Century, the building relates with the streetscape and not with the New River occupying part of the site appears to be a shed or other storage building. The subject site relates with the compound. This view also reveals the extent of change and transformation effected on the area New River Head compound, of which it is a part, acting either as storage space or part of the outbuildings. immediately around the New River Head.
16 26 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 18: A view of the New River Head compound from 1947 showing the subject site (marked in red and inset below). The subject site forms part of the compound and is sparsely built up, having some outlying buildings and vegetation. Figure 19: A contemporary view shows the extent of urban transformation around the New River Head compound. The subject site, now built up with Hydra Building, relates more to the streetscape than the compound.
17 27 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
HA APPENDIX 3: HISTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NEW RIVER In 1591, Pieter Morice, a Dutchman installed a water wheel on one of the arches of London Bridge, forming the CONSERVATION AREA London Bridge Waterworks, the oldest competitor to the New River project. The waterworks were successful but New River Conservation Area water from the Thames was not pure due to the then prevailing practice of discharging effluent into the river.
h The New River Conservation area within the London Borough of Islington is centred around New River Head, where In the early 17 Century, Islington was outside the boundaries of the city, situated in its northern outskirts, but had the New River, a 17th C aqueduct carrying fresh water into London from Hertfordshire terminated. It is an area of a favourable topography with low hills overlooking London. In 1600, Edmund Colthurst proposed the construction great historical interest and significance, with much of the properties having developed as a result of the New River of the New river, and in 1609 Hugh Myddelton was granted consent by James I of England to commence works. over the 18th and 19th centuries. Owing to increased demands for fresh water, the site developed rapidly in the 18th The New River was constructed between 1609 and 1613 and comprised of many engineering works including and 19th centuries, with the creation of additional holding tanks, terraces for housing staff and associated amenities. channels, aqueducts and culverts, brining fresh water from Amwell Springs in Hertfordshire to Islington. The New River terminated at the New River Head Site where a reservoir- the Round Pond was constructed to collect and The importance of the New River in shaping the area is testified through the names of streets in the vicinity including store the water for distribution. Myddelton Square and passage, River Street and Amwell Street. The Georgian and Victorian terraces in the area were predominantly developed as a result of expansion of the New River head site. Figure 21: Engraving of New River Head works c.1655, attributed to Wenceslas Hollar
The Site of New River Head was chosen to be the company’s headquarters with the construction of the Water House- an office building which was subsequently expanded over the next two centuries. Over the course of the
next three hundred years, additional buildings such as the Engine house, Windmill and water testing facilities were built. While the site itself was originally bounded by a low timber palisade, it was only in the 18th century that a Figure 20: Birds eye view of the New River Head Conservation area (marked in red) showing the New River Head Site brick wall was constructed, part of which still survives and is protected by listing. (marked in yellow) and the subject building (blue) In the latter half of the 17th century, an outer pond, which extended around the Round pond developed. As an Historic development of New River Conservation Area overflow of water from the main reservoir. This soon became a principal place for Angling near London. In 1708, an The development of New River Conservation Area is strongly linked with the history of fresh water supply to the City of additional high level pond was constructed at what is now Claremont square. London. The City of London, expanding beyond the medieval city walls had few sources of fresh water, largely Important Views within the Immediate Area restricted to the Thames and freshwater wells in the city. However, by the 13th century these had grown inadequate and alternative sources were sought, including the construction of the Great Conduit brining water of Islington Council has delineated locally important views towards the site- LV4 (from Archway Road) and LV5 the Tyburn from South Hampstead to the city. (from Archway Bridge).
18 28 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Nine significant views have been identified towards the subject site from different vantage points. The significance of these views is in understanding the relationship of Hydra building with its context especially the Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings in the vicinity.
The views have been chosen through an extensive survey on the site, and to include views from all directions. Additionally, these views include both New River and Rosebery Avenue Conservation Areas.
A map indicating the views is shown below.
C A 5
B
1 D 4
3 2
Figure 23: Listed buildings in the vicinity- Grade II* (orange) and Grade II (purple) with the subject site in blue. The
open spaces highlighted in dark green are public, whereas those in light green are private with limited public access. Figure 22: Plan of the New River Head Precinct showing conservation area boundary and significant views to the site Prevailing & Former Uses within the Area
Since its inception, the history of the New River Head Conservation area is linked with the New River itself. The Key Heritage Assets within the Immediate Area site of New River Head was always used as a water storage and pumping area, with engine and pumping houses, The New River Conservation Area preserves significant architectural edifices- both locally and for London as a spaces for testing water quality and offices for the company.
whole. The site of New River Head, the wider area of which the subject site falls in, is historically significant in the In the 18th and 19th centuries, the company acquired property in the vicinity including land around Claremont development of fresh water supply to the city. Testifying to this importance, one Grade II* building and a Square and Myddelton Square where housing was developed for the company staff. number of Grade II listed buildings and structures are located within the wider area. A map indicating the listed The round pond was shut in 1914 and the outlying ponds were closed in 1946 when the New River was buildings is shown below: terminated at Stoke Newington. However the site continued to be used as the Metropolitan Water Board, later Thames Water’s headquarters. In 1987, when Thames Water moved its headquarters to Reading, the site lost its former function, and has been reclaimed for housing. Between 1990-2003, the main Office building and Laboratory building were converted into flats, and the Hydra and Nautilus buildings were constructed. The site of former water reservoirs are presently used as private gardens with limited public access.
Today the New River Conservation Area is predominantly residential with a few commercial establishments on 19 29 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
the main streets and towards Angel station in the NE. In the immediate vicinity of the subject site, Exmouth Market, Rosebery Avenue and Amwell Street have a few commercial establishments. Sadler’s Wells Theatre, one of the oldest theatres in London has retained its function as an entertainment venue.
Townscape of the Area
New River Conservation area is characterized by a mixed development, with historic terrace houses around squares, tower blocks, commercial establishments on the main streets and public gardens. The streetscape predominantly dates from the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the Clerkenwell Street and Rosebery Avenue being constructed in the late 19th century as urban improvements.
The precinct preserves a medium density development, with most buildings being between one and six storeys tall, with a few taller examples within the Conservation Area. Most streets and squares preserve wrought iron railings, flagstone paved footpaths and historic lighting. A few brick boundary walls are seen, and notably an early 19th century wall south of Myddelton passage is Grade II listed. Many historic properties are listed alongside the railings and other historic streetscape features. Historic shopfronts are preserved on Amwell Street and Exmouth Market.
The varied architectural styles, materials, typology and scale of buildings is a result of the historical development of
the site over the last four centuries. Figure 25: View of the four storeyed Georgian terraces around Myddelton Square. The square was developed in c.1820-30s by Chadwell Mylne as part of urban development around the New River Head.
Prevalent and Traditional Building Materials
Owing to the historical development of the site over the last four centuries, a variety of architectural styles and building materials have been employed. Whereas the Georgian and Victorian terraces are faced with stock brick and provided with timber sash windows, more recent buildings such as Honeycott House on the intersection of Amwell and Margery Streets are provided with glass and paneling. The Grade II listed Charles Rowan House is faced with red bricks and built in an Expressionist style, Charles Allen House built in the 1960s is a tower block with brick facing and large glazed openings.
Within the New River Head ‘Wider Area’ Hydra and Nautilus buildings, constructed between 2000-03 are faced with brick, in keeping with the streetscape character.
Overall the profusion of building material reflects changing building styles over a long period of the precincts historic development.
The Contribution Made by Open Spaces and Other Natural Elements to the Immediate Area
The New River Conservation Area, especially the area around the subject site has a large number of open spaces-
both public and private. Some of these open spaces such as the gardens within the New River Head and Figure 24: View from Amwell Street, looking southwards towards Rosebery Avenue. The Georgian terraces on Claremont Square are historically significant since they housed water reservoirs- some under active use. Housing both sides of this street were constructed in the late 1820s by Chadwell Mylne. from the 19th century, such as around Myddelton, Lloyd and Wilmington Square were conceived as terraces around open public squares. 20 30 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
The Conservation Area has a contoured topography, gently sloping from north towards south, as part of the Figure 27: Aerial view of the River Head Site historic Islington hill. Views from the north of Amwell Street towards Rosebery Avenue reveal this characteristic incline.
Figure 26: Aerial view of the New River Head site showing location of Hydra Building (subject site) in Red.
21 31 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
HA APPENDIX 4: SCHEDULE OF LISTED BUILDINGS IN THE AREA
10 15 9
14 7 11 8
13 12
6
KEY
1- Charles Rowan House And Attached Iron Railings Grade II* Listed Buildings 2- Numbers 9, 11 And 13 And Attached 1 Railings Grade II Listed Buildings 3- Roman Catholic Church Of St Peter And St Paul 4- Numbers 3 And 5 And Attached Railings Locally Listed Buildings 5-Finsbury Town Hall 6-New River Head (former Metropolitan
Water Board offices) Subject Site 7-New River Head Revetment of Old Inner 2 Or Round Reservoir Pound 8-New River Head Chimney Conduit 3 (Devil's Conduit) In The Round Reservoir 9-New River Head Research Building 4 5 (Thames Water) Figure 27: Plan of listed buildings 10-Wall, Extending For Circa 90 Metres Westwards From Arlington Way in the vicinity 11-Former Engine House and attached boiler houses and coal store, New River Head 12-Windmill base, New River Head 13-Clerkenwell Church Of England Primary School 14-Numbers 32-42 (Even) and Attached Railings 15-Number 27, 29 And 31 and Attached Railings
22 32 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Introduction – Listed Buildings Based on a survey of the precinct around the subject building- Hydra Building and supported by archival research, the following 15 listed buildings have been identified as significant within the immediate neighbourhood of the site. Number Listed Grade Listing NGR Listing Description Building 1 Charles II TQ3118982659 Includes: Charles Rowan House WILMINGTON STREET Finsbury. Includes: Charles Rowan House AMWELL STREET Finsbury. Includes: Cha rles Rowan House MERLIN Rowan House STREET Finsbury. and Attached Iron Railings Former flats for married policemen, now council flats, on a steeply sloping site bounded by roads on all four sides. 1928 -1930. G Mackenzie Trench architect and surveyor for the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Red brick laid in Flemish and English bonds with moulded brick dressings to street elevations, and multi-coloured stock bricks to courtyard elevations; roofs obscured; projecting, picturesque red-brick stacks demarcate breaks in the roofline where the blocks step up the hill.
Expressionist style. Four massive facades parallel to four roads: great arches lead into the central courtyard from Merlin and Margery Streets. Five storeys wi th basement; six bays (each of three-window range to Amwell Street) and (2:3:4:4:3:2 to Wilmington Street); eight bays (2:3:3:2:2: 3:3:2 to Margery and Merlin Streets). Powerful, rhythmic street elevations with bays articulated by full -height moulded brick stacks treated as pilasters that create strong skyline. Decorative extradoses and dressings to great arched entrances. Metal casement sashes separated by narrow full-height moulded brick pilasters that become a decorative feature to brick parapets; decorative brickwork above top floor sashes. Stacks and intervening parapets read as battlements. Attached iron railings to exterior elevations.
INTERIOR: Ninety-six two and three-bedroomed flats were originally provided on five floors, with a covered playground in the basement. Minor alterations have occurred.
History: Nos. 22-24 Wilmington Square, formerly on this site, were demolished in order to build the austerely impressive Charles Rowan House Police Flats block. As early as 1904 the Metropolitan Police Authority planned housing for 500 married policemen. Records indicate that this earl y goal was not reached; a concerted effort at building police accommodation did not occur until the 1950s. Plans for those in Wilmington Square survive in the Public Record s Office but they appear to be the only ones. At least three other police flats by Trench are extant: Crawford Street, Marylebone, 1925; Kintyre House, New Park Road, Lambeth, and Cornwall Street, Waterloo, but Charles Rowan House is the least altered and most architecturally assured of the group. Stylistically i t is also unusual for this country and exhibits a powerful, Expressionist manner most often associated with continental design of this period.
Source: (Historians File, English Heritage, London Division: 1990; The Squares of Islington: Cosh, M: The Squares of Islingto n Part I: Finsbury and Clerkenwell: Islington: 1990: 96). 2 Numbers 9, II TQ3127282616 Three terraced houses, no. 13 now with foundry to ground-floor. 1828-1829; mid C19 shopfront. By William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor for the New River Estate. Yellow stock brick 11 And 13 set in Flemish bond, painted reveals, no. 13 with wooden shopfront; roofs obscured, party-wall brick stacks. Side-hall entrance plan to nos. 9-11; ground-floor shop with domestic And Attached upper floors to no. 13. Three storeys with basement; 2 windows each. Low steps rise to round-arched house entrance to right: doorway to no. 9 with Doric column jambs, no. 11 Railings with plain jambs and no. 13 with pilaster jambs, all carrying corniced-head, fanlight (no. 13 patterned) and C20 panelled door. Nos. 9 (round-arched) and 11 with 8/8 sashes to ground-floors; no. 13 altered to wooden double shopfront with console-bracketed pilasters carrying entablature, shop door to centre flanked by large paned windows. Gauged- brick flat arches with 6/6 sashes to upper floors; 1st floor beneath full-length sashes with paired iron balcony with Gothic pattern to railings to no. 13. Some rebuilding to upper floors. Plain brick parapet with stone coping. Attached cast-iron railings with spear head and urn finials. 3 Roman II TQ3128482606 Formerly known as: Northampton Tabernacle. Formerly known as: Rosoman Street Mission. Non-conformist chapel, now Roman Catholic church. 1835. By John Blyth for Countess Catholic of Huntingdon's Connexion. Gold stock bricks set in English bond with stucco ground-floor, dressings and rusticated quoins; roof obscured by high stucco cornice. Rectangular plan Church Of St with symmetrical facade to Amwell Street; forms part of contemporary terrace. Neo-classical style. Two storeys; 3-window range with projecting central bay. Steps rise to 3 Peter And St ground-floor deeply-recessed entrances, all architraved and keystoned with pairs of panelled C20 doors. Ground-floor central bay of grander proportions and composed of blind Paul Ionic irregular tetrastyle pilastrade. Freize above main entrance faintly inscribed 'NORTHAMPTON TABERNACLE '. Door to centre flanked by 16-paned fixed sashes; outer bays with 18-paned rectangular overlights to doors. 1st floor stucco storey band with corbels to outer bays; central bay storey division articulated by cornice of ground-floor tetrastyle. Large architraved Venetian window to central bay with irregular multi-paned glazing, a high keystone and balustraded base; flanking round-arched sashes to outer bays of similar design with balustraded bases. Stucco cornice and parapet with heightened blocking course to centre inscribed 'ERECTED 1835.' INTERIOR: Plain Neo-classical interior, but partially remodeled C20. Original full-height blind arcading carried on Corinthian pilasters to 'ritual' East end. Plain plaster side walls with C19 dado; modillioned cornice, original flat ceiling with square coffering, gilded rosettes and 3 elaborately patterned cast iron ceiling roses to centre. Fine C19 gallery to rear and sides of chapel supported on slender cast-iron Ionic columns and balustraded with cast-iron panels of gilded Gothic-style tracery. Limited fenestration to side-walls. Shallow vestibule created by c1972 glazed partition gives access to rear of chapel and to flanking gallery staircases. History: Built as Northampton Tabernacle for Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion; from 1847 leased to Roman Catholics. Also formerly known as Rosoman Street Mission before it became the Roman Catholic Church of St. Peter and St. Paul. (Report prepared by Philip Temple for English Heritage: Islington Chapels: London: 1989-1989: 1-3/AMWELL STREET).
23 33 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
4 Numbers 3 II TQ3129082594 Probably 3, now 2 terraced houses. 1828-1829, altered late C19 or C20. William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor for the New River Estate. Multi-coloured stock brick set in Flemish And 5 And bond, banded stucco ground-floor to no. 5, and painted reveals throughout; roofs obscured, party-wall brick stacks. Side-hall entrance plan to no. 5; no. 3 with late C19 carriage Attached entrance to left but plan unknown. Three storeys with basement; 4 windows each to no. 3 and 2 windows to no. 5. Steps rise to round-arched entrance (no. 5, small round-arched Railings entrance to right of main entrance): doorway with attached Doric columns carrying corniced-head, fanlight (no. 3 patterned) and panelled door. 2/2 round-arched sashes to ground-floors. Gauged-brick flat arches with 6/6 sashes to upper floors, some pivot windows. 1st floor stucco sill band to no. 5. Some rebuilding to upper floors; plain brick parapet with stone coping. Attached cast-iron railings with urn finials. 5 Finsbury II* TQ3134882600 Town Hall. 1895 with later alterations. By C. Evans-Vaughan FRIBA (d.1900). MATERIALS: Hard red bricks (glazed to base) set in Flemish bond with elaborate rubbed red brick; Bath Town Hall and Portland stone dressings; tiled gabled roofs with prominent brick stacks; cast iron porch, railings, clock, weathervane. PLAN: Triangular island site with main entrance to Rosebery Avenue elevation, irregular returns to Rosoman Street and Garnault Place. Courtyard in centre. Service gateway along south-eastern side, with secondary entrance towards southern corner. Irregular plan with central entrance leading to staircase, lateral corridor to ground floor, main rooms on first floor; secondary circular staircase towards northern end. STYLE: eclectic 'Free Renaissance' composition in a Flemish-inspired manner. EXTERIOR: main entrance elevation faced north-west. Central entrance bay of three storeys with stone frontispiece, projecting cast iron porch with decorative leadwork inscribed FINSBURY TOWN HALL, and triple lanterns. Arched opening at first floor level with Venetian window set-back within, behind balustrade. Four-light window at second floor level with columnar mullions of stone. Elaborate cast iron clock above, set between stone finials at parapet level. To right, six windows at ground floor level with 9-pane sashes over plate glass, with stone lintels. Upper level with four large twelve-light mullion and transom windows with decorative carved panels above. Projecting tall chimneystack between end-most windows. Egg and dart cornice of stone. To left of entrance, lower section with four windows at ground floor level; continuous six-light mullion and transom window with columnar mullions; modillion cornice; balustraded parapet. Chimneystack to left with tall shafts. Northern rounded angle with elaborate four-bay gabled end: four windows to ground floor, first floor divided by engaged Ionic columns with pairs of four-light mullion and transom windows set bewteen, beneath a stone frieze; scrolled gable above divided by stone colonnettes, with stone coping; relief depicting the arms of Finsbury executed in cut brick to centre. Behind, gabled flank to main section of building with tall octagonal ventilation shaft with ogee-capped lantern with weather-vane above. East- facing elevation comprises a curved end section to flank of main building, with pedimented window surrounds at raised ground floor level with two-light windows above, set between pilasters of rubbed brick. Oval windows to parapet above. Doorway with swan's neck pediment below. Rest of east elevation comprises an irregular seven-bay front with double doors to centre bays, inserted entrance to southern bay. Ground floor arched openings with heavy voussoirs; irregular fenestration to upper floors with elaborate nine- light oriel window set within rubbed-brick surround. Very tall chimneystacks rise from parapet. Southern angle of three bays, with heavy voussoirs to ground floor arched windows, stone frontispiece to upper section with carved band at first floor level supporting four Ionic columns, between arched windows in stone surrounds, with balustrades below; putti flank portrait profile of Queen Victoria over central opening; scrolled gable above with broken pediment flanking central urn. Relief carving depicts female allegorical figures of Commerce and Navigation (above), Peace and Plenty (below). South-west facing return along Rosoman Street with two tall chimneystacks towards south end, gabled end to centre with six-light mullioned window at first floor level, curved apsidal end with arched door in front of gabled end to main block. INTERIOR: entrance corridor with arched ceiling, walls lined with veneer panelling, with bronze panles listing mayors of Finsbury 1895-1965. Spine corridor runs north-south: rooms include the panelled registry office, or 'marriage room', and the part-panelled Mayor's Parlour, with bolection-moulded chimneypiece. Circular staircase at north end with wrought iron scrolled balustrade, tiled to dado level. Main staircase in part boxed in at time of inspection. Brass dedication plaque on landing records unveiling by the Prime Minister Lord Rosebery in 1895. North end of first floor contains former council chamber with broad vaulted plaster ceiling carried on Ionic columns; decorative glazing; triple arched gallery at south end with balustrade; half-height panelling. Public hall to south of main range: exuberant space in Belle Epoque manner with apsidal stage at south end. Barrel-vaulted compartmented ceiling hung from hidden iron roof structure. Four bays each side, divided with pilasters: large plaster angels at upper level support four-headed lily candelabra. Windows on north west side, glazed doors on south-east side, mirrors on north end wall flanking framed double doors. Allegorical figures of Music and Poetry in plaster over proscenium arch, flanking cartouche with emblems of the visual arts. Cartouche at north end with arms of the Borough of Finsbury. SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: modern plaque on main front records the election of Dadabhai Naoroji as Member of Parliament for Finsbury in 1892: the first Asian to be returned to Parliament as Liberal Member for Finsbury, he would have been returned from the forerunner of this building. Double-depth basement was remodelled in c.1939 by the architectural practice of Tecton to serve as the control centre for Finsbury: it has lost its fittings but remains an installation of interest. HISTORY: this town hall was unveiled by the then-Prime Minister Lord Rosebery in June 1895. It is an exceptionally good example of a town hall of this date and size, possessing an interior with rooms of unusual elabrateness. Evans-Vaughan showed drawings for the building at the 1898 Royal Academy; he died in 1900, while still in his 40s: this is his most important work. Finsbury acquired borough status in 1900 and was subsumed within the London Borough of Islington in 1965. 6 New River II* TQ3137582733 Reasons for Designation Head (former The New River Head building, built in 1915-20 to designs by Herbert Austen Hall, is listed at Grade II* for the following principal reasons: * Metropolitan The Oak Room: the carved woodwork, panelling, plasterwork and ceiling painting of 1693, transferred from the previous building on the site, form an exceptionally rich and Water Board complete ensemble - one of the best of its date in London - whose aquatic and riverine iconography vividly reflects the original function of the site. (This is the primary reason for offices) the high grade of listing); * Historic interest: built as the headquarters of the Metropolitan Water Board, and succeeding the old River House as the central feature of the New River Head site, the building encapsulates the 400-year history of mass water supply in the metropolis; * Architectural interest: the 1915-20 building, although somewhat compromised by subsequent alteration, is an impressive late essay in the Edwardian grand manner, retaining - particularly in the former board room and rental ledger hall - some interiors of note.
History The New River, a 40-mile conduit bringing clean drinking water from Amwell in Hertfordshire to supply the City and northern suburbs of London, was begun in 1605 and completed in 1613 under the direction of the City magnate Hugh Myddelton, who became the first Governor of the New River Company (NRC) when the latter received its royal charter in 1619. The conduit's terminus was on the high ground of Clerkenwell, where a circular reservoir, the Round Pond, was formed; this was gradually supplemented by further ponds, filter beds, a windmill and an engine-house to create the extensive waterworks known as the New River Head. Beside the Round Pond stood the Water House, 24 34 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
containing both the stop-cocks for the reservoir and accommodation for the site overseer. The Water House, which appears in views by Hollar and others, was extended and remodelled in 1693 when John Grene, clerk to the NRC and Myddelton's grandson-in-law, took up residence, and again by the Company's surveyor Robert Mylne when he lived there in the 1780s. In 1820 the building, further enlarged by Mylne's son William, became the NRC's headquarters.
A Royal Commission of 1897 recommended that London's water supply system be brought into municipal ownership, and in 1902-4 the assets of the NRC and the other seven private water companies were taken over by the Metropolitan Water Board (MWB). In 1913, despite opposition from those who favoured a more central site in Westminster, the MBW decided to build its new headquarters at New River Head. The Round Pond was filled in and the old Water House demolished, although the panelling and plasterwork in Grene's 'Oak Room' of 1693 were carefully removed for reinstallation in the new building. A limited architectural competition was held in 1914, won by the experienced town hall architect Herbert Austen Hall. The initial contractors were TW Heath & Son, later replaced by Rice & Son of Stockwell. Work began in July 1915, several months after the start of the Great War, which eventually brought construction to a halt for two and a half years from 1916. This resulted in various economies including the substitution of brick for Portland stone on most of the exterior. The building was finally opened in May 1920, having cost £298,417 - more than three-and-a-half times the original estimate. In 1933-6 the eastern ranges were raised by one storey, an addition anticipated in Hall's original design. The cupola at the east corner and the board members' dining room on the top floor of the north range were also added at this time. In 1995-8 the offices, having been relinquished by the MBW, were converted by Broadway Malyan architects to form 129 flats.
Herbert Austen Hall (1881-1968) worked for a number of firms before setting up in partnership with Septimus Warwick, with whom he worked on several large municipal buildings including Lambeth Town Hall (1905-8) and the Shire Hall at Reading (1904-11). His later works include the east wing of the Peter Robinson store on Oxford Street (1922, with TP and ES Clarkson) and the Bankers' Clearing House at 10 Lombard Street in the City of London (with Whinney & Son, 1938-61). Details MATERIALS: red and brown brick and Portland stone with slated mansard roofs; modern uPVC windows replacing timber sashes.
PLAN: the building forms a large irregular pentagon on plan, comprising a large quadrangle to the west and a triangular extrusion to the east formed by two obliquely projecting wings enclosing a courtyard. The main entrance, in the centre of the south range, leads via a lobby and a broad entrance hall to the former Rental Ledger Hall, which occupies the quadrangle’s central well. The principal staircases are at either end of the west range, with a third stair at the apex of the eastern triangle. The boardroom occupies the first floor of the south range immediately above the entrance, while the Oak Room is on the first floor at the south end of the west range.
EXTERIORS: the south front to Hardwick Street is a bold, Beaux-Arts Classical composition, with a three-bay stone-faced centrepiece flanked by narrow recessed bays and projecting outer wings. The wings are faced in fine red brick, although the rusticated stonework of the lower storey is carried across the whole of the front. The central doorway is set in a richly ornamented surround, its upper panel containing a wreath with the MWB monogram and an inscription (‘ERECTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD ON THE SITE OF THE NEW RIVER HEAD’) set amid naturalistically carved water-plants and scrolls bearing the dates 1613 and 1920. The doors themselves are clad in bronze and bear MWB monograms in paterae with anthemions. The piano nobile, which contains the boardroom suite, has paired giant pilasters to the centrepiece and stone balconies and pedimented architraves in the outer wings. A dentil cornice above runs the full width of the façade; the centre block rises into an attic storey and a steep mansard with dormers.
The treatment of the outer wings is continued along Rosebery Avenue in the angled eastern ranges. Both the cornice and the rusticated basement are carried around this part of the building, and the penultimate bays – with triple-keystone doorways at ground level – have first-floor balconies and architraves (though not pediments) like those on the main front. Above the cornice is an attic storey (added in the 1930s) and a mansard with dormers. The apex of the triangle is squared off, and here there is a short projecting block forming a secondary frontispiece: this has a semicircular bay window with Doric triglyphs on the ground floor and paired giant brick pilasters flanking a pedimented window on the piano nobile. From the mansard above rises a tall stone tower (another 1930s addition), square below but developing into an octagonal cupola above.
The west range and the short north range are much more simply treated. They are faced in plain brown brick with red brick dressings and a more sparing use of stonework. The southern part of the west range contains the Oak Room, its presence marked by full-height windows (retaining their original sashes) with ornamental iron balconies and semicircular tympana brought from the old Water House and inscribed ‘ERECTED A[NN]O MDCXIII’ and ‘RESTORED A[NN]O MDCCLXXXII’. The north range has projecting wings echoing those of the main front; the eastern wing is surmounted by a bow-windowed penthouse containing the board members’ dining room.
INTERIORS: the significance of the interior is greatly enhanced by the Oak Room (see details below), which is the primary reason for the Grade II* listing. Much of the rest of the interior is of a lesser order, which would warrant Grade II listing otherwise. The following text sets out this relative interest in detail. The entrance lobby is a small, approximately square, room lined in rusticated stonework, with a moulded plaster ceiling (dentils with guttae) and a floor of polished grey and black limestone. Carved roundels bearing the insignia of the MBW's eight constituent companies are displayed in the frieze, with a band of wave-scroll decoration below. The openings at either end are flanked by fluted Roman Doric columns.
Beyond the lobby is the entrance hall, a broad transverse space with a stone floor, pilastered walls and moulded ceiling. At its western end is one of the two principal staircases, its lower flights having elaborate balustrades of wrought-iron scrollwork. A similar arrangement of hall and stairs is found in the north range.
The former Rental Ledger Hall is a rectangular double-height space beneath a glazed elliptical plaster vault with decorated ribs. The original fittings - a curved counter at the entrance and blocks of clerks’ desks in the body of the hall - have all been removed, and the side openings infilled, although the glazed hardwood doors at either end remain. Above these are balustraded galleries topped with square lanterns; further balustrades run across the upper-level windows on each side, which are set within lunettes scooped
25 35 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
out of the soffit of the vault.
On the first floor of the south range, immediately above the main entrance, is the former boardroom, now the largest and most luxurious of the flats. This has a richly moulded and coffered ceiling supported on giant Ionic columns and pilasters with Bassae capitals. Between these runs a band of wave-scroll ornament, beneath which are roundels identical to those in the entrance lobby. At either end of the room are raised galleries bearing further roundels. The original fittings – a raised dais with semicircular banks of seating – have been removed; two carved hardwood doorcases survive, although the doors have been replaced in glass and a third opening created in place of the dais.
The other parts of the building have been much altered on conversion into flats, although some rooms retain hardwood doorcases, panelling and fireplaces. The basement contains a strongroom of fireproof concrete construction with massive steel doors.
OAK ROOM The richly carved oak panelling and plaster ceiling in this room were installed in the old river house by John Grene in 1693, and were transferred to the new building in 1919-20. The room is square, and originally had windows on three sides, although it is now flanked by lobbies to north and south. The dominant feature is the elaborate chimneypiece, set between Corinthian columns and comprising a white marble fire surround surmounted by an overmantel bearing the full armorial achievement of William III along with trophies depicting a variety of aquatic life - fish, crayfish, crabs, scallops, water plants etc - as well as pheasants, pigeons, fruits, ears of corn and other more conventional motifs. The upper panels all around the room bear carved wreaths and festoons, some with amorini (winged cherubs' heads), trumpets, drapery and similar motifs. All the carving is done in very high relief in the illusionistic manner of Grinling Gibbons, although the actual identity of the carver is unknown.
The ceiling is no less rich. In the centre is an oval oil painting by Henry Cooke, depicting angels and Virtues bearing aloft an image of William III, enclosed within a wreath of flowers and fruits. The surrounding ornament is divided into three bands separated by ribbon-mouldings. The narrow inner and outer bands contain miniature scenes of hunting, fishing, boating and other riverine and pastoral activities, along with images of fortifications, classical water deities (Nereids, Tritons, Neptune’s chariot), rosettes and palm fronds. The broader middle band is of rich acanthus scrollwork, among which appear various species of birds and reptiles. Cartouches at the corners contain swans and dolphins; in the middle of the short sides are roundels with Tritons, while on the long sides are painted shields with the arms of John Grene and Sir Hugh Myddelton. The lobbies on either side, added in 1919-20, also have elaborately moulded ceilings, again with dolphin cartouches. The antechamber to this suite contains two boards emblazoned with the names of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the MWB from the 1900s to the 1970s.
Two rooms in the south range (not seen) also contain good late-C17 ceilings from the Water House, originally in the loggias which Grene added to the main block. These have central roundels bearing the date 1693 and the NRC seal, which depicts rain falling from an open hand upon the City of London, along with the motto 'ET PLUI SUPER UNAM CIVITATEM' (Amos 4:7, 'and I shall cause it to rain upon one city').
SUBSIDIARY FEATURES: the main entrance to Hardwick Street is approached via a flight of stone steps whose flanking walls support cross-braced railings and lamp standards. Similar railings, alternating with square stone piers, run along the Rosebery Avenue front, with arched overthrows marking the two side entrances. Selected Sources Books and journals Cherry, B, Pevsner, N, The Buildings of England: London 4, North, (1998 revised 2001), 611-2 Saint, A, Survey of London: Volume 47: Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville, (2008), Ch. VI Other GF Stringer/Metropolitan Water Board, Some Descriptive Notes on the New River Head, (1927) 7 New River II TQ3133282758 Resevoir Revetment. Northern half of revetment of old Inner or Round Reservoir Pond, drained in 1913 and now used for parking and builders' storage for Thames Water Head Headquarters Building (formerly called New River Head/Metropolitan Water Board). c.1609-1613 by Stephen Bone, bricklayer; remodelled with iron pile revetment, 1841-1842 by Revetment of W. C. Mylne, Surveyor to the New River Company; new retaining wall and York paving to bottom, 1854 by George Mansfield under Mylne's supervision; southern segment of Old Inner Or reservoir demolished 1919-1920. All work until 1902 for the New River Company, patron; C20 work for the Metropolitan Water Board, patron. Multi-coloured stock brick inner Round face set in English bond with Yorkshire stone slab sloping floor; outer face lined with cast iron plates. Three stone plaques to western face of outer revetment commemorate the Reservoir building of the reservoir. The New River arrived at Finsbury in 1613 where there was already a pond known as Duck Pond. This was wharfed with oak boards for the reception of the New River Water, and surrounded by a brick wall built by Stephen Bone a bricklayer much in evidence during the early years of the company's existence. In 1841 repairs to the Pound Inner Pond were urgent. W C Mylne, surveyor to the New River Company, inserted fender piles making it unnecessary to empty the centre pond. He then secured new iron piles all around the circumference and inserted iron wharfing. In 1854 George Mansfield built a retaining wall of smaller dimensions to support the slopes and levelled and lined the bottom of the pond with York paving stone. The C20 demolition of the southern segment of the pond wall was due to the erection of the new headquarters building for the Metropolitan Board of Works on the site. (Historians File, English Heritage, London Division: 1990-). 8 New River II TQ3135082786 Chimney conduit. Sited within former Round Pond to rear of New River Head Office Building. C14 with later additions; formerly in Queen's Square, Bloomsbury, dismantled and re- Head erected at New River Head, 1927. Rusticated Portland stone ashlar, with plain stone dressings; flat stone roof to upper chamber, vaulted pebble-dash roof to lower chamber. Chimney Symmetrical design. Structure set on splayed plinth with raised entrance to upper chammber. This conduit served originally as an extension to the White Conduit which supplied Conduit the Grey Friar's Monastery (later Christ's Hospital, Queen's Square). (Buildings of England: Pevsner, N: London: London: 1951-: 118). (Devil's Conduit) In The Round 26 36 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Reservoir 9 New River II TQ3139982826 Laboratory, research, and office building located in New River Head site, with its main entrance in Arlington Way. 1936-38. By Stanley Hall and Easton and Robertson, architects Head (John Murray Easton, designer), Walter Lawrence and Son Ltd., builders and John Skeaping, stone carver for the Metropolitan Water Board, patron. Steel frame faced with Himley Research bricks of brownish-red colour set in stretcher bond (with vertically laid bricks above 1st floor of front block) and Portland stone dressings; hollow tile roof and floor construction, Building plate glass windows and glass brick panels. Long curved plan to main axis articulated in powerful horizontal expression; attached entrance foyer and semi-circular glazed staircase (Thames projection of strong vertical design forms front block on a right angle (cross axis) and faces Arlington Way and Rosebery Avenue. Modern Movement manner. Three storeys with Water) full basement (to main axis only); 21-window range to curve; double-fronted entrance block of 5-window range to Arlington Way, and 5 giant two-storey full-height glass-brick panels set in recess to round-ended left-hand return wall. Front elevation: two-storey full-height giant brick pilaster strips resting on stone plinth with metal casement sashes set in recess to front and glass brick panels set in recess to round-ended return; flanking steps rise to recessed centre entrance; moulded stone cornice above 1st floor; 2nd floor stepped back slightly and with short sashes to main front, plain brick wall to rounded left-hand return with Metropolitan Water Board's coat of arms carved in stone relief to centre, brick parapet with string courses and stone coping. Curved side (main axis) elevation: stone basement; upper floors with metal casement sashes that decrease in height as they go up, stone surrounds with fluted jambs and bracketed sills to ground-floor recessed sashes, of 13-window range; 1st floor ribbon windows articulated by short stone pilaster strips; stone cornice/sill band below 2nd-floor sashes, stone string course above sashes; plain brick parapet with stone coping. INTERIOR: : outstanding circular cantilevered staircase with wrought-iron balusters, bronze handrail; stair treads and hall floor of terrazzo, all lit by full-height panels of glazed bricks and surmounted by a blue ceiling over the stairwell upon which F P Morton incised a figure of Aquarius surrounded by stars in plaster and gilt; other period details include square lighting wall fittings mounted on copper backs, and wood figurative relief sculpture panels above some of the doorways. The building was erected over the site of one of the filter beds that had been installed in place of part of the Outer Pond. Easton and Robertson seem to have specialised in laboratories following their work for London Zoo in 1933-1934. The building's north- south aspect was essential and set as it is in the historic New River Head site it forms a significant group with listed buildings. Additionally, the New River Head Research Building is adjacent to the Sadler's Wells Theatre (q.v.). The laboratory is a simple but powerful design in the modern spirit of Charles Holden or Thomas Tail. (Historians File, English Heritage, London Division: 1990-; ). 10 Wall, II TQ3133882838 Wall. Early C19. Purple brick with some replacement in yellow brick; laid in Flemish bond and c.2 metres high with gabled coping. Some forty metres from Arlington Way are Extending For initials, dates and other graffiti scratched in the brick by the French prisoners who were employed to build the wall. (Information from Helen McMurray). Circa 90 Metres Westwards From Arlington Way 11 Former II TQ3126282773 Summary of Building Engine House Pumping engine house with attached boiler houses and coal store. Engine house built in 1768 under the supervision of Robert Mylne, Surveyor to the New River Company and and attached extended by him in 1786. Remodelled and extended 1794-5 under William Chadwell Mylne, with subsequent additions and alterations of 1811-18 and 1845-9. Boiler houses boiler houses rebuilt and coal store added 1845-9. The late-C19 lean-to structure to the east end of the coal store is not of special interest. and coal Reasons for Designation store, New The former engine and attached boiler houses and coal store, New River Head, is listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons: * Historic interest and rarity: as one of the principal structures of the New River Head complex, London’s first waterworks site, comprising at its core the remains of the earliest waterworks pumping engine house to River Head survive nationally; the incrementally extended and remodelled engine house, as realised by 1818 under Mylne Senior and Junior, is also an early survival; * Architectural interest: while evidence of machinery has largely been erased, the building’s well-documented evolution from 1768-1849 remains legible within the fabric and plan, reflecting the rapid pace of technological advance and obsolescence in that period; the cast-iron stair of 1848-9 is a fine example of its type; * Group value: with several listed buildings on the site built by the New River Company and its successor the Metropolitan Water Board, in particular the windmill base which marks the earliest phase of powered pumping on the New River Head; such a grouping is unique in a waterworks site. History The New River Head takes its name from the terminus of the New River, the 40-mile channel cut in 1604-3 to supply the City of London with water from springs in Hertfordshire, a civil engineering achievement vital to the development of the metropolis. It was directed by the City magnate, Hugh Myddelton, who became the first Governor of the New River Company (NRC) when it received its royal charter in 1619. From the high ground of rural Clerkenwell a network of wooden mains conveyed water to the cisterns of London. The site initially comprised a reservoir - the Round Pond - and a single building known as the Water House containing the stop-cocks and accommodation for the site supervisor; over time it expanded to some seven acres.
The engine house's complex evolution reflects the pace of technological advance and the challenge of supplying water to the expanding metropolis in the face of strong competition. In 1708, the NRC built a new reservoir, the Upper Pond, some 350m to the north-west in what is now Claremont Square, the higher ground providing a greater head of pressure to enable distribution to more distant areas in and around the West End. Water was pumped here from the Round Pond by a windmill whose base still survives, but this proved ineffective and was superseded c1720 by a horse engine. The problem of supplying the Upper Pond continued however and in 1766 the NRC engaged John Smeaton, a prominent engineer, who designed a Newcomen-type engine of unusually long stroke, his first steam engine, which was erected in 1768 under the supervision of Robert Mylne, Surveyor to the NRC. The engine house, a tall, heavily buttressed brick slab with two octagonal turret stacks, comprised two chambers housing a pump and a cylinder to the north and south respectively, plus a lean-to boiler house to the south. The engine proved inadequate however and had to be supplemented by a water wheel on the horse-engine site. In 1786 Mylne extended the engine house westwards to accommodate a new Boulton & Watt engine, plus a pump chamber and stair, located to the south-west and north-west
27 37 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
respectively. Further extensions were added to the east and north in 1794-5, when Mylne remodelled the entire structure to create a symmetrical D-plan with a curved north elevation. A second Boulton & Watt engine (replacing Smeaton’s now-obsolete engine) was located in a chamber to the south east, and a pump to the north east, mirroring their 1786 counterparts, the pumps now housed in a unified curved chamber to the north. The 1763 core now contained a high-level cistern and stair in the north and south chambers respectively. Two chimneys rose from the south walls of the extensions and a second lean-to boiler house was added to the east shortly after. Further improvements took place from 1811-18 under William Chadwell Mylne, who succeeded his father in 1811, including the replacement of both engines with improved Boulton & Watt models. The 1786 stair, chimneys and south chamber stair were removed, the last making way for a 110’ tall chimney. The last major phase from 1845-9, again under Mylne, followed the successful introduction by Thomas Wicksteed of a Cornish engine for the East London Waterworks in 1838, and inventions enabling the compounding of old engines to work with high- pressure steam on the Cornish system. Accordingly, the Boulton & Watt engines were adapted to work new cylindrical boilers, and the two boiler houses rebuilt and enlarged. A stair tower was added to the west and a coal store to the north-east. Behind the chimney, above the north chamber which contained cisterns or condensation tanks, an octagonal brick structure was added to support a tall iron cylinder. The engines were replaced in 1897-8 and 1901-3.
In 1902-4 the NRC became part of the Metropolitan Water Board (MWB), and in 1915-20 the Round Pond was filled in and the Water House demolished to make way for the new MWB headquarters. In 1946 the waterworks became redundant; at this time the New River, by now running underground through north London, was terminated at Stoke Newington. The engine house chimney was removed in 1954 and the engines c1957 when a concrete floor was inserted. Water supply resumed on the New River Head site with the construction of the London Ring Main in 1986-94, served by a new pumping station. Details MATERIALS: engine house in brown stock brick; 1840s additions in yellow stock brick, both with much C20 patching; stone cills and coping; slate roofs; 1840s cast-iron frames to most windows. PLAN: the engine house has a D plan. The internal compartments are essentially as existing in 1794-5, with some breaches in the walls, and comprise the 2- chamber engine house of 1763 at the core minus its north wall; flanking engine chambers of 1786 and 1794-5 to the south-west and south-east and a large curved pump room to the north. Stair tower to west, conjoined single-storey boiler houses to south and east, and a single-storey coal store range to the east, all dating from 1845-9.
EXTERIOR: the engine house has plain brick banding between stages. The curved north elevation has a tall round-arched window with radial cast-iron glazing bars, an 1840s insertion. Upper windows have segmental arches. The east elevation has paired windows; round headed to the lower level and segmental to the upper. The blind south elevation incorporates at its centre the only outwardly visible element of the 1768 engine house; this has a blocked window (inserted in 1786 to light a short-lived stair). The flanking walls have flat, much rebuilt buttresses and upswept parapets. The west elevation retains brickwork from the 1786 extension including a pair of offset buttresses; the entrance was enlarged in the C20; above are segmental-arched windows. The stair tower has a string-course to the parapet and round-arched windows; the upper blind. Ground-floor entrance enlarged in the C20. The walls to all elevations have numerous curved iron tie-rods. The roof is surmounted by the octagonal brick structure which once supported a metal cylinder, now with a timber louvred cupola.
The boiler houses have low hipped roofs; that to the south-west with a glazed ridge. The west elevation has two windows with cambered gauged-brick arches; the lower part has been remodelled in the C20 with inserted openings. The south elevation is blind with three offset buttresses. The south-east boiler house has a series of inserted late-C20 louvred openings on the south side and a round-arched doorway on the east side. The north elevation adjacent to the coal store has been rebuilt. The coal store has a hipped roof with a glazed ridge. A brick lean-to structure along the south elevation was removed in the 1950s. The elevation has seven arcaded bays, now blocked; three with cast-iron windows. The north elevation has been altered and has a large opening with a concrete lintel.
INTERIOR: the engine house’s elaborate cast-iron stair of 1848–9 was supplied by Henry and Martin De La Garde Grissell of Regent’s Canal Ironworks, leading manufacturers of structural ironwork from c1841. Remnants from the 1845-9 stage include some substantial cast-iron girders, pocketed to carry the ends of floor beams in the west engine-house, and of I-section in the north chamber of Smeaton’s building, to support cisterns or condensation tanks for preventing steam loss. The boiler houses and coal store have light wrought-iron roof trusses but retain no fittings of interest. Selected Sources Books and journals Saint, A, Survey of London: Volume 47: Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville, (2008), 165-184 12 Windmill II TQ3124382761 Summary of Building base, New Base of windmill built 1707-8 to power water pumps. Tower demolished c1770 and in mid-C19, when the structure was converted to a store. River Head Reasons for Designation The windmill base, New River Head, is listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons: * Historic interest and rarity: although representing only a small proportion of the original structure, it has considerable significance as evidence of the earliest phase of powered pumping on the New River Head site; there are no known surviving comparators within a waterworks nationally; * Group value: with several listed buildings on the site built by the New River Company and its successor the Metropolitan Water Board from the C18 to the early C20; most notably the former engine house which continues the narrative of rapid technological advance and obsolescence in the water-supply industry; such a grouping is unique on a waterworks site. History The New River Head takes its name from the terminus of the New River, the 40-mile channel cut in 1604-3 to supply the City of London with water from springs in Hertfordshire, a civil engineering achievement vital to the development of the metropolis. The scheme was directed by the City magnate, Hugh Myddelton, who became the first Governor of the New River Company (NRC) when it received its royal charter in 1619. From the high ground of rural Clerkenwell a network of wooden mains conveyed water to the cisterns of London. The site at first consisted of a reservoir - the Round Pond - and a single building known as the Water House containing the stop-cocks and accommodation for the site 28 38 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
supervisor; over time these were supplemented by further buildings, ponds, cisterns and filter beds, covering seven acres.
In response to the demand for water supply to the expanding metropolis and strong competition from other companies, the NRC engaged George Sorocold, the first great English water-supply engineer, who in 1707-8 designed an experimental and expensive scheme for a windmill and an upper reservoir. The latter, known as the Upper Pond, stood some 350m to the north-west of the windmill in what is now Claremont Square, the higher ground providing a greater head of pressure to enable distribution to more distant areas in and around the West End. The windmill powered four pumps to force water uphill from the Round Pond to the Upper Pond. It consisted of a tapering round brick tower, then rare in England, with oval windows, an ogee cap, and six sails. At the base was an integral horse gin for use when there was little wind. The windmill did not work well, possibly due to its sheltered position, and was abandoned in 1720. Nor was the base large enough to serve well for the horse gin, and a new horse mill was built c1720 adjoining the defunct windmill on the south-east side, which supplied the Upper Pond until 1768 when the pumping engine house was built. In addition to the horse mill, the windmill had a small attached structure to the south-west side which appears on C18 maps. Around 1770 the windmill tower was reduced to two storeys and castellated, and by the mid-C19 it had been demolished down to the base and converted into a store. By 1874 the adjoining structures had been removed and replaced by a more substantial building on the south-east side, which was linked to the engine house's south-west boiler room. These structures were removed in the 1970s. Details MATERIALS: red brick laid in English bond with numerous areas of C20 patching and repair where attached structures have been removed; clay tile roof. DESCRIPTION: the windmill base is approximately 12m in diameter, with a blocked segmental-arched entrance on the north face. The later entrance to the south-west has a timber lintel and double doors with strap hinges. The conical roof has a small circular lantern to the apex. The interior has no surviving features of interest. Selected Sources Books and journals Saint, A, Survey of London: Volume 47: Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville, (2008), 165-184 13 Clerkenwell II TQ3118982756 Formerly known as: Clerkenwell Parochial School AMWELL STREET. Parochial (Church of England) school. On west side of slope of hill approaching Claremont Square from the Church Of south. 1828-1830. By William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor for the New River Estate. Yellow stock brick set in Flemish bond with stucco dressings; roof obscured by parapet, brick England stacks. Tudor Gothic style. Side-hall entrances to outer bays. Two storeys; 11 bays arranged 1:1:7:1:1. Symmetrical facade with recessed centre; projecting flanking bays and Primary recessed end entrance bays. Steps rise to segmental pointed arched entrances surmounted by louvred quatrefoils: stucco panelled storey bands above inscriptions 'GIRLS School SCHOOL' to left and 'BOYS SCHOOL' to right; archivolts and hood-moulds to doorways; original panelled door to 'BOYS SCHOOL'. Hood-moulds to mostly replacement pivoting sashes throughout. Nine-light sashes to recessed centre with continuous sill bands, ground-floor sashes taller. Flanking bays with narrower sashes: round-arched set in square- headed openings to ground floor and taller of 21-panes, to 1st floor. Sill and inscribed storey bands beneath 1st floor 12-pane sashes to entrance bays. Stucco band and stone coping to parapets. Attached School Keeper's house (No 25) set back at left (south) end: 2 storeys; 2 bays. Clerkenwell Parochial School was founded in 1700 but has only been in its present location since 1830. (Richardson, J: Islington Past A Visual History of Islington: London: 1988-: 63). 14 Numbers 32- II TQ3120382796 Six terraced houses, one with corner shop called 'Lloyd's Dairy, on east side of slope of hill approaching Claremont Square from the south. 1828-1829. By William Chadwell Mylne, 42 (Even) and Surveyor for the New River Estate. Yellow stock brick set in Flemish bond with stucco ground-floor to no. 40, wooden shopfront and stucco ground-floor to no. 42 and stucco Attached dressings; Welsh slate mansard roof to no. 42, other roofs obscured, party-wall brick stacks. Side-hall entrance plan except no. 42 which has a shop. Three storeys with basement; Railings 2 windows each plus 1 window to left-hand return wall in River Street. Round-arched entrance (no. 42 with impressive side entrance to return wall in River Street flanked by attached Doric columns carrying entablature and blocking course): fluted 1/4 column jambs carrying corniced-head, fanlight (nos. 32, 36, 38, 42 patterned) and all with C20 door. 6/6 sashes with curved and radial glazing bars and most with margin lights to ground-floors except no. 42. No. 42: mid to late C19 double shopfront articulated by console bracketed pilasters to either end supporting curved fascia (with painted glass in gold script, lettering inscribed 'Dairy Farmer LLOYD & SON High Class Dairy Produce') and moulded cornice; prostyle Doric portico to corner entrance carrying projecting curved corner fascia; pair of original panelled shop-doors in corner recess surmounted by wooden rectangular overpanel; entrance flanked by 3-light shop windows with elliptical-shaped tops and panels beneath. Gauged-brick flat arches with 6/6 sashes to upper floors; 1st floor stucco sill band beneath full-length sashes set in arched brick recesses linked by stucco impost banding with individual cast-iron balconies most with Vitruvian scroll and anthemion pattern to railings. Some rebuilding to upper floors; stucco panels over 2nd floor sashes to no. 42. Plain brick parapet with brick string course and stone coping. Attached cast-iron railings with ball and disc finials. INTERIOR: Lloyd's Dairy (no. 42): ground-floor with very fine early C20 grained and panelled oak counters with marble tops; some refrigerated 'made to measure' counters used to keep churns; 1950s Frigideric freezer; period shelves to walls. Lloyd's Dairy, contrary to local legend, began here in 1914; prior to that it had been an auctioneer's since at least 1861. The dairy included a shop from 1921. It is probably not one of the original Welsh dairies, but is still run by the Lloyd family and 'one of the finest existing dairies...' (Historians File, English Heritage, London Division: 1990-: 42 AMWELL STREET; Daily Telegraph: 'We'll Keep a Welcome in the Dairies': London: 1972-: 22 NOVEMBER). 15 Number 27, II TQ3117482785 Includes: No.24 LLOYD BAKER STREET. Four terraced houses. 1828-1829 by William Chadwell Mylne, Surveyor for the New River Estate; C19 shopfronts; major alterations by 29 And 31 Islington Council c.1990 including complete reworking of ground-floor elevations to nos. 27-29. Multi-coloured stock brick set in Flemish bond with banded stucco ground-floor to and Attached nos. 27-29, wooden and glazed-brick shopfronts to nos. 31 Amwell Street and no. 24 Lloyd Baker Street, and stucco dressings; roofs obscured, party-wall brick stacks. Side-hall Railings entrance plan to nos. 27-29 and ground-floor shop with domestic upper floors to nos. 31 Amwell and 24 Lloyd Baker Streets. Three storeys with basement (no. 24 Lloyd Baker Street with 1 storey side-entrance extension); 2 windows each. Low steps rise to entrance of nos. 27-29 (no. 29 round-arched): all c.1990 details to ground-floor. Mid to late C19 shopfront to others: no. 31 with shop door to right and windows to left and 24 Lloyd Baker Street with corner shop entrance flanked by shop windows and house entrance to right-hand return wall; both shopfronts articulated by console-bracketed pilasters supporting fascia and cornice. Gauged-brick flat arches with 6/6 sashes to upper floors; 1st floor stucco sill band beneath full-length sashes set in arched brick recesses with continuous cast-iron bracketed balcony the length of nos. 27 & 29 with Gothic pattern to railings. Significant rebuilding to upper floors. All with plain brick parapet with stone coping (no. 29 irregular); stucco cornice and band to no. 24 Lloyd Baker Street. Attached cast-iron railings.
29 39 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 28: Charles Rowan House (circa 1928) Grade II Listed
1- Designed by G. Mackenzie Trench and built for married policemen between 1928-30, this building is an example of the Expressionist style in London. The building is faced in red brick laid in Flemish and English bonds with moulded brick dressings to the street elevations. The building has five storeys (G+4) over a basement.
Figure 29: Numbers 9, 11 and 13 Amwell Street (and railings) (1928) Grade II Listed
2- Nos.9,11 and 13 are Georgian terraces constructed in 1928-29 by W. C. Mylne, who was also responsible for the construction of some buildings within the New river Head complex as the Surveyor of the New River Estate. No. 13 preserves a mid 19thC original shopfront.
30 40 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 30: Roman Catholic Church of St Peter and St Paul, (1835) Grade II Listed Figure 31: Numbers 3 and 5 Amwell Street (and Railings) (1828) Grade II Listed
3- Formerly known as Northampton Tabernacle, Rosoman Street Mission and Non-Conformist 4- Nos. 3 and 5 on Amwell Street, were built as part of the late Georgian terraces on the West side of chapel, and at present Roman Catholic Church of St Peter and St Paul, this late Georgian Amwell Street by W.C. Mylne. Three storeyed stock brick faced building with basement. building, dating from 1835 was designed by John Blyth. This Neo-Classical edifice has golden stock brick façade with stucco ground floor, rusticated quoins and high stucco cornice. The building’s interiors were partly remodelled in the 20th century.
31 41 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 32: Finsbury Town Hall (1895), Grade II* Listed Figure 33: The New River Head building (1915), Grade II* Listed
5- Finsbury Town hall is a Grade II* listed building on a Triangular island site at the intersection of Rosebery 6- The New River Head building, built in 1915-20 as the head office for Metropolitan Water Board and Avenue and Rosomon Street. Built in 1895 by C.Evans-Vaughans, the Town Hall is his most renowned work. later Thames Water. This building replaced the original 17th century Water House (extended in the 18th Finsbury was subsumed into the London Borough of Islington in 1965 and since then, the building has been and 19th centuries). This Grade II* listed building, designed by Herbert Austen Hall preserves the 17th put to other community uses and presently functions as an events venue. century Oak room with carved woodwork, panelling, plasterwork and painted ceiling. Between 1995- 98, the offices were converted into residences by Broadway Malyan architects into 129 flats. (courtesy: Google Earth 3D View)
32 42 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 35: Finsbury Town Hall Figure 34: New River Head revetment of old inner or round reservoir pond Grade II Listed 8- C.14th Century conduit originally supplied water to the Greyfrairs monastery and was located on Queen’s 7- The northern half of revetment around the Round Pond, originally dating from the 17th century but Square in the early 20th century. It was rescued and re-sited here in 1927. remodelled with iron plate revetment in the mid-19th Century. When the pond was drained in 1914, the revetment became redundant and much of it was demolished for the construction of New River Head building. (courtesy: Collage, London Metropolitan Archives)
33 43 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 36: Laboratory building Figure 37: Wall extending for circa 90 metres westwards from Arlington way, Grade II Listed –1298024
9- The Grade II listed Laboratory building designed by John Murray Easton of Stanley Hall, Easton and 10- Two metre high wall south of Myddelton Passage, built using purple and later yellow bricks in the early 19th Robertson Architects in a modernist style. The laboratory was built in 1936-38 as a steel frame faced with century. The wall preserves some graffiti markings by French prisoners who were employed for its Himley Bricks of brownish red colour, set in stretcher bond. Presently used as residential building. construction.
(Courtesy: Collage, London Metropolitan Archives)
34 44 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 38: The Engine House (1716) Grade II Listed Figure 39: Windmill Base, New River Head
11- Originally built in 1768 and extended in 1786,1794, 1811-18 and 1845-49, the Engine House is 12- Base of windmill built in 1707-08 to power the water pumps; designed by George Sorocold. Tower was demolished in 1770 and in mid 19thC, the structure was converted into a store. The building is historically Grade II listed. The building is of historic and architectural interest, possibly being the first Engine and architecturally significant apart from having a group value alongside the Engine house. (Courtesy: house in the country, and though traces of machinery is largely erased, the building’s development Collage, London Metropolitan Archives) is well documented and legible in its plan. It also has a group value within the immediate core area of the New River Head. The building has suffered significant alterations in the last century. (Courtesy: Collage, London Metropolitan Archives)
35 45 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 40: Clerkenwell Church of England Primary School (Grade II Listed)
13- Built between 1828-30 by W.C. Mylne in a Tudor Gothic revival style between 1828-30. The facades are dressed in yellow stock brick set in Flemish bond with stucco details. Stucco panelled storey bands with inscription- Boys School and Girls School seen on two sides.
Figure 41:: Numbers 32-42 (Even) and Attached Railings (Grade II listed)
14- Six terrace houses built between 1828-29 by W.C. Mylne as part of a number of terraces in a similar style and
layout constructed by him on Amwell Street during the same period.
36 46 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
Figure 42: Number 27, 29 And 31 (and attached Railings) (1828), Grade II Listed on Amwell Street 15- Terrace houses built between 1828-29 by W.C. Mylne as part of a number of terraces in a similar style and layout constructed by him on Amwell Street during the same period. Major alterations by the council in c.1990 including complete reworking of ground floor elevations.
37 47 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) December 2017
HA APPENDIX 5: SIGNIFICANCE APPRAISAL - Due to subsequent building activity, including the construction of Hydra building, the site is likely to have been An assessment of significance of the site and the buildings/structures within the site has been carried out to accord disturbed and therefore not yield significant archaeological remains. The Evidential value of the site is with the requirements of the NPPF and uses Historic England’s methodology outlined in its 2008 document, “Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance”. therefore low. The site on which Hydra building stands is historically significant as being on the Wider Area of the New River Head Moreover, the site of construction is the terrace of a contemporary building and therefore does not involve any precinct. Some of the buildings on site such as the Engine house and Windmill base date from the 18th century. excavation works under the ground level. However, the site has undergone rapid transformation over the last six decades and especially since the 1990s when it stopped functioning as the head offices of Thames Water and adopted a largely residential function. The present Historical Value building on the subject site dates from 2000-2003 and is an example of contemporary design, which is neither unique nor rare in the precinct. The building does not preserve any noteworthy features or details of historic significance. "Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through Though the site of New River Head is historically significant, this has been diminished by past accretions and a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative." (Conservation Principles para 39). development on the site, which retains little of the historic fabric, making the overall historic site plan illegible. The “The historical value of places depends upon both sound identification and direct experience of fabric or only vestiges are the surviving listed historic buildings and structures as standalone entities, amongst this newer landscape that has survived from the past, but is not as easily diminished by change or partial replacement as development. evidential value. The authenticity of a place indeed often lies in visible evidence of change as a result of people The Hydra Building is one such contemporary building, constructed between 2001-03 at the site. The significance of responding to changing circumstances. Historical values are harmed only to the extent that adaptation has relevant aspects of this ‘host building’ shall be analysed through the following: obliterated or concealed them, although completeness does tend to strengthen illustrative value.” (Conservation Principles para 44). Evidential Value – this relates to the potential of the place to yield primary evidence about past human activity; The Hydra building is an example of contemporary architecture in Islington, having been constructed in the early Historical Value – relevant to ways in which the present can be connected through a place to past people, events and 21st Century. Many similar examples of buildings are found in the area. The building is not associated with an aspects of life; important personality, nor has it been designed and constructed by a prominent architect. Its illustrative value of Aesthetic Value – focusing on the ways in which sensory and intellectual stimulation is derived from the place; its time is low because it is neither rare nor an outstanding example of its period. Therefore, the Historical value Communal Value – relating to the meaning the Hydra Building and its site has for the people of Islington in particular of the site may be said to be negligible. and London in general; and the collective experience of memory they hold.
Evidential Value Aesthetic Value "Evidential value derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity" (Conservation "Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place". Principles para 35). (Conservation Principles para 46). “Evidential value derives from the physical remains or the genetic lines that had been inherited from the past. The "Aesthetic values can be the result of conscious design of a place including artistic endeavour. Equally they can be ability to understand and interpret the evidence tends to be diminished in proportion to the extent of its removal or the seemingly fortuitous outcome of the way in which a place has evolved and be used over time. Many places replacement" (Conservation Principles para 36). combine these two aspects… Aesthetic values tend to be specific to a time cultural context and appreciation of Hydra building itself dates from the early 2000s, however the site has been occupied and used for over four them is not culturally exclusive." (Conservation Principles para 47). centuries. Historic maps have shown a number of buildings on the site, the most recent having been bombed during "Design value relates primarily to the aesthetic qualities generated by the conscious design of the building, the war. The site appears to have been first occupied for the construction of the New River Head complex of structure or landscape as a whole. The embraces composition (form, proportions, massing, silhouette, views and buildings and therefore it is unlikely that any pre 17th century remains might be found at the site, which was prior to vistas, circulation) and usually materials or planting, decoration or detailing, and craftsmanship.” (Conservation that on the outskirts of the City of London. Principles para 48). 38 48 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO CONSERVATION REPORT BY STEPHEN LEVRANT
Hydra building, designed and built between 2000-03 follows a contemporary aesthetic, but is sympathetic to the built environment. The building itself does not have any significant aesthetic character or unique design feature. Faced with yellow stock brick it blends with the townscape being predominantly stock brick or red brick faced buildings. The building is neither a local landmark nor has any ornamental details/ finishes or any specific value in terms of craftsmanship or other artistic merit. Therefore, the aesthetic value of the building is low.
Communal Value
"Communal value derives from the meanings of place for the people who relate to it will for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional specific aspects." (Conservation Principles para 54).
“Social value is associated with places that people perceive as a source of identity, distinctiveness, social interaction and coherence.” (Conservation Principles para 56).
Hydra building was designed as and retains a residential function with no access to the general public. Though the site itself has a value for the community as being within the wider zone of New River Head, the building has no specific interaction with the local community. Therefore, its communal value is negligible.
Conclusions
Hydra Building is an example of early 21st Century architecture, built on a site which has been altered in the past and has little value to the local community. Having examined the Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic and Communal values of Hydra building, which is the host building for the proposed extension, the overall value of the building appears to be low.
39 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 49 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO CONSERVATION REPORT BY STEPHEN LEVRANT
HA APPENDIX 6: APPRAISAL OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SUBJECT SITE TO ‘Is it associated with a designed landscape e.g. a significant wall, terracing or a garden building?‘ THE CONSERVATION AREA No. The building site would have been part of the New River Head complex, but there are no surviving features The following questions contained in the Checklist “Understanding the Place” (Historic England Guidance, 2011) or elements- either built or landscape features to which the building forms part of. might be asked when considering the contribution made by unlisted buildings to the special architectural or historic interest of a Conservation Area. A positive response to one or more of the following may indicate that ‘Does it individually, or as part of a group, illustrate the development of the settlement in which it stands?’
the unlisted building makes a positive contribution provided that its historic form and values have not been Built between 2000-2003, the Hydra building illustrates the 21stC development at site, alongside a few other eroded. buildings in the vicinity such as 1-4 Hardwick Street, 35 Margery Street, etc.
‘Is the building the work of a particular architect of regional or local note?’ ‘Does it have significant historic association with features such as the historic road layout, burgage plots, a
No. The early 21st Century building is not the work of a renowned architect. town park or a landscape feature?’
‘Does it have landmark quality?’ No. Though the building site falls within the New River Head area, it does not have a significant historic association with any townscape features associated with the precinct. The site of the building was at various No. The subject site occupies a corner plot with a largely domestic residential function. There is nothing in its times occupied by outbuildings of the New River Head development, the last of which were bombed during the form, design or aesthetics to suggest a landmark quality. war. ‘Does it reflect a substantial number of other elements in the conservation area in age, style, materials, form ‘Does it have historic associations with local people or past events?’ or other characteristics?’ No. The building does not have any historic association with local people or past events. No. The New River Head site lacks a uniform architectural identity or building style, representing buildings from different periods. Hydra building, built in 21stC does not reflect other buildings within the precinct or ‘Does it reflect the traditional functional character or former uses in the area?’
conservation area. No. The area has traditionally been used for city services- water supply and pumping, associated with the New
th th ‘Does it relate to adjacent designated heritage assets in age, materials or in any other historically significant River. Residential properties in the area were developed in the late 18 and 19 Centuries to house company way?’ staff. Hydra building being of residential function is part of the trend of post 1990 conversion of buildings in the precinct for residential functions. No. The building is standalone and does not relate to the adjacent buildings in age or design. It is not part of any continuous streetscape or group of buildings. However, it adopts the use of stock brick facing, which is seen in ‘Does its use contribute to the character or appearance of the area?’
other buildings within the precinct. No. It makes a neutral contribution to the character of the area, it has limited presence in the public realm, and
‘Does it contribute positively to the setting of adjacent designated heritage assets?’ its construction, form, materiality and design are not noteworthy.
No. The building does not relate either to the listed Charles Rowan House or the New River Head building. It Conclusion – In accordance with the 2011 Historic England publication Guidance on ‘Understanding Place’, does not positively contribute to the precinct or to the setting of adjacent listed buildings. regarding the assessment of unlisted buildings in a conservation area, it is considered overall, that ‘Hydra Building’ makes no significant contribution to the special architectural or historic interest of the Conservation ‘Does it contribute to the quality of recognisable spaces including exteriors or open spaces with a complex of Area. This is primarily owing to its low heritage values which are the result of its recent age, contemporary public buildings?’ design and function as a private residential building. No. In fact with its poorly designed corner detail (being on the junction of Amwell and Hardwick Based on the above, the contribution of the building to the overall significance of the conservation Area is Streets), it detracts from the character of Georgian terraces further down the road. Neutral.
40 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 50 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
HA APPENDIX 7: VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 51 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
C
A
5
B
1 D
4
3 2
Figure: Map of Clerkenwell area within the Borough of Islington showing the subject site (marked in orange) and the significant views to the site from the surroundings. The red line marks the boundary of New River Conservation
42 52 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
TABLE 1: VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW
VALUE/ IMPORTANCE DEFINITION TABLE 2: VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE
VALUE/ IMPORTANCE DEFINITION The asset will normally be a World Heritage Site, grade I or II* listed building, scheduled monument, grade I or II* historic park and garden or historic battlefield which is a central focus of the view and whose significance is well represented in the The view is likely to be a nationally or regionally important view (e.g. HIGH view. views in the LVMF, a view identified in a World Heritage Site The Viewing Place (and/or Assessment Point) is a good place to view the asset or the management plan or designed views within grade I or II* historic parks or only place from which to view that particular asset. gardens) and/or contain heritage assets such as World Heritage Sites, HIGH grade I or II* listed buildings, scheduled monuments, grade I or II* historic parks or gardens or historic battlefields whose heritage significance is The asset will normally be a grade II listed building, grade II historic park and garden, well represented in the view and which benefit from being seen in conservation area, locally listed building or other locally identified heritage resource combination with each other. which is a central focus of the view and whose significance is well represented in the view. The view is likely to be of importance at the county, borough or district The Viewing Place (and/or Assessment Point) is a good place to view the asset and level (e.g. Metropolitan Views defined by London boroughs or designed may be the only place from which to view that particular asset. views within grade II historic parks or gardens) and/or contain heritage MEDIUM assets such as grade II listed buildings, grade II historic parks or gardens, The asset may also be a World Heritage Site, grade I or II* listed building, scheduled conservation areas, locally listed buildings or other locally identified monument, grade I or II* historic park and garden or historic battlefield which does heritage resources whose heritage significance is well represented in the MEDIUM not form a main focus of the view but whose significance is still well represented in view and which benefit from being seen in combination with each other. the view. It may also be a view that contains heritage assets such as World Heritage In this case the Viewing Place (and/or Assessment Point) may be a good, but not the Sites, grade I or II* listed buildings, scheduled monuments, grade I or II* best or only place to view the heritage asset. historic parks or gardens, or historic battlefields whose heritage significance is clearly readable, but not best represented, in this particular view. The asset may be a grade II listed building, grade II historic park and garden, conservation area, locally listed building or other locally identified heritage resource which does not form a main focus of the view but whose significance is still well LOW The view is likely to be a locally valued view and contain heritage assets represented in the view. such as grade II listed buildings, grade II historic parks or gardens, In this case the Viewing Place (and/or Assessment Point) may not be the best or only LOW conservation areas, locally listed buildings or other locally identified place to view the heritage asset. heritage resources whose heritage significance is clearly readable, but not best represented, in this particular view.
43 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 53 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
TABLE 3: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT DEFINITION
The development considerably enhances the heritage assets in the view, or High beneficial the view as a whole, or the ability to appreciate those values.
The development enhances to a clearly discernable extent the heritage Medium beneficial values of the heritage assets in the view, or the view as a whole, or the ability to appreciate those values.
The development enhances to a minor extent the heritage values of the Low beneficial heritage assets in the view, or the view as a whole, or the ability to appreciate those values.
The development does not affect the heritage values of the heritage assets Imperceptible/None in the view, or the view as a whole, or the ability to appreciate those values.
The development erodes to a minor extent the heritage values of the Low adverse heritage assets in the view, or the view as a whole, or the ability to appreciate those values.
The development erodes to a clearly discernable extent the heritage values Medium adverse of the heritage assets in the view, or the view as a whole, or the ability to appreciate those values.
The development severely erodes the heritage values of the heritage assets High adverse in the view, or the view as a whole, or the ability to appreciate those values.
44 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 54 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
View CGI Type Location and Direction of Heritage Assets, Conservation Area Townscape Character Visual Receptors Impact on the View View A Wireframe View from Amwell Street S From within New River Conservation Area, Important thoroughfare road in Clerkenwell Pedestrians, Vehicular Moderate effect towards Rosebery Avenue looking to the Rosebery Conservation Area. with Georgian Terraces dating from the 1830s traffic Charles Rowan House and Georgian Terraces seen within streetscape B Wireframe View from Amwell Street at the New River Conservation Area Important thoroughfare road in Clerkenwell Pedestrians, Vehicular Minor effect corner of New River Head site, traffic, Residents Looking S towards subject site C Wireframe View from Myddelton passage, From within the New River Conservation Area, Residential streetscape with mid-century and Pedestrians, Residents Minor effect looking SW towards the subject looking beyond the Grade II Listed Wall. contemporary buildings site D Wireframe View from the intersection of From within the Rosebery Avenue Conservation Main thoroughfare connecting Islington Pedestrians, Vehicular Minor effect Hardwick Street and Rosebery Area, looking to the New River Conservation (Angel) to Camden (Holborn) traffic Avenue Area. Grade II* New river Head visible and Charles Rowan House seen in the background. 1 Render View SE from the intersection of New River Conservation Area and Grade II Primarily residential townscape with Georgian Pedestrians, Vehicular Minor effect Margery Street and Amwell Charles Rowan House seen terraces on Amwell street traffic Street 2 Render View NE towards the subject site New River Conservation Area and Grade II Primarily residential with early 20th Century Pedestrians, Residents Moderate effect from Wilmington Square Charles Rowan House prominently seen buildings. 3 Render View N from Amwell street Looking towards New River Conservation area Important thoroughfare road and close to Pedestrians, Vehicular Minor effect towards the Subject site from Rosebery Avenue Conservation Area. Grade junction with Rosebery Avenue. Mixed use traffic II listed St Paul’s Church and Georgian Terraces to the left of viewer 4 Render View W towards the subject site New River Conservation Area, Grade II Charles Mixed use development with Residential and Pedestrians, Vehicular Moderate effect from Hardwick Street Rowan House seen in the view Corporate traffic 5 Render View SW from ‘New River (not yet accessible but plausibly Grade II Listed Heritage Trail looking at New River Head Not known (not Heritage Trail’ off Myddelton Engine House, Windmill base and Charles Rowan precinct accessible) passage House)
45 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 55 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW A Amwell Street and Lloyd Baker Street cross-roads
EXISTING PROPOSED
This view looking towards the subject site from the intersection of Amwell Street and Lloyd Baker Street shows part of the The subject site with proposed extension as seen from the intersection of Amwell and Lloyd Baker streets. The proposed Hydra building’s northern face in the background. To the left are the Grade II listed Georgian Terrace houses- Nos. 32-42 extension is inconspicuous within the streetscape and barely visible in this view. The heritage assets- listed buildings on (even) Amwell Street by William Chadwell Mylne built c.1828 while in the foreground to the right are Grade II listed terraces both sides of the street are not affected by the proposed extension. by the same architect. Since the proposed extension is considerably offset from the original parapet line, it does not impact the streetscape. The seven storey Charles Allen House built in a contemporary style is seen just behind the listed terraces to the left. This large building with its red-brick faced exteriors and large glazed window openings does not respond to the historic CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW environment in its immediate neighbourhood. Moreover it is recessed from the street-front and provided with a compound wall- features alien to the streetscape. Beyond this building, the open area originally contained the water The proposed extension is barely visible in this view due to its design and form. In filtering beds of New River Head. The subject site is just located beyond this. The Grade II listed Charles Rowan house this view, it does not significantly deter from the historic character of listed with its brick faced exteriors and built in an expressionist style is seen to the right (West) of the subject building. Minor Adverse buildings and streetscape, considering that the context is marred by other tower
Overall the streetscape preserves many of its historic features including footpaths paved with flagstone, cast-iron railings blocks such as Charles Allen House (left) and streetlights. While the scale and proportions of the Georgian terraces on both sides of Amwell Street is preserved in the northern end of Amwell street, the Contemporary Charles Allen House and other buildings have introduced newer TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE scale, building style and materials within the precinct. The townscape is of generally good quality, and the receptor WITH LOW VALUE sensitivity of this view is therefore high. WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE
With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW With medium magnitude of Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm The Grade II listed Charles Rowan House is seen to the right, beyond the listed Georgian terraces on this impact Medium streetscape With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm
VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm
Conclusions: There are few Heritage assets in this view which has a High receptor sensitivity and is identified by Islington Medium- High This view looking towards Rosebury Avenue is part of the Views identified by the Islington Council council as an important view. This view however has been altered due to multi-storey tower blocks such as Charles Allen house. Moreover, the impact of the proposed extension is minor due to its scale and design. Therefore the overall effect is 46 Moderate. ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 56
The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW B View from Amwell Street
EXISTING PROPOSED
This view from Amwell Street shows the subject site to the immediate background in the centre. Hydra building has a Due to the long-range view, the proposals are barely visible. The façade is particularly blank and flat and the angle is such blank elevation with a distinctive parapet. The Grade II listed Charles Rowan House built in an Expressionist style with that the majority of the addition is not visible beyond the existing building’s parapet. its brick faced exteriors is seen to the right providing an eclectic skyline. In the foreground to the left is the gated compound which originally contained the New River Head Water works and included the Filtering beds, Windmill (base The height of the extension would be contained to lie below the very prominent chimneys of the adjacent building meaning that the building will remain subservient to its very dominant neighbors. is preserved) and the former Engine House (still stands on the site). Though this compound contains listed buildings of great significance, is not accessible to the general public. A single storey brick building with gabled roof is seen through the fence. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW
The large 24 storey tower block on Skinner street is seen in the background dominating the skyline. This view is The streetscape is altered by development such as the contemporary building to significant since it looks towards the edge of New River Conservation Area from Amwell street with Hydra building and the right and Charles Allen house (not seen in this view) to the left of the viewer. Minor harm Charles Rowan house forming the boundary. Beyond is the Rosebury Street Conservation Area. The proposed addition is not very conspicuous within the streetscape, being setback from the existing building. Receptor sensitivity: High
TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE
VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW WITH LOW VALUE WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE Low The Grade II listed Charles Rowan House is seen to the right, however this is not its principal view. With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm
With medium magnitude of VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm impact
Medium- High This view looking towards Rosebury Avenue is part of the Views identified by the Islington With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm
Conclusions: This view, identified by Islington council as important shows the listed Charles Rowan House. However more contemporary buildings such as the 35 Amwell street reveal that the streetscape has a varied character. The proposed extension with its low scale and stepped back design does not deter from the existing streetscape or harm the setting of the listed building. Rear extension adds a modest visual interest to the skyline to relieve the bland mass of the walling and acts as a focus to Charles Rowan House. 47 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 57 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW C View from Myddleton Passage
EXISTING PROPOSED
This view from Myddelton passage looks SW towards the subject site- with only the topmost storey barely The parapet of the existing Hydra building was already visible from this view so the increased height is visible above the high compound wall. Residential buildings to the south of Myddelton passage are bounded considered to be of limited impact. In addition, the view will be experienced in passing rather than as a by an early 19th C stock brick compound wall- itself Grade II listed. The gate to the far right was originally composition as this is a transitional view rather than a destination one. intended to lead towards the New River path with public rights of way. However this has now been locked and is not accessible. The historically significant buildings including the Engine House and Windmill Base are CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW within the compound to the right. The proposed extension is visible just above the Listed wall on Myddelton Though Myddelton passage is a quiet streetscape with the wall on one side and brick terraces on the other, passage. Since the Receptor Sensitivity in this area is low and since the extension Neutral views towards Hydra building are very limited. does not significantly impact the setting of the listed Engine house, the overall impact is Minor-adverse. Receptor sensitivity: Low- Medium TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW WITH LOW VALUE WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE The view looks at the New River Head site from Myddelton passage and reveals the Grade II Listed MEDIUM With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm perimeter wall as well the historic Engine House to the right. However this is not a principal view. With medium magnitude of Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE impact With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm The view has a Low to Medium Receptor Sensitivity and is an incidental and transitional view. Therefore its MEDIUM overall significance is medium. Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm
Conclusions: Listed buildings are seen in this transitional view, however this view is not the principal view of the buildings. The proposed extension would not significantly impact the setting of the site due to its scale and design. Therefore, this view has an overall minor adverse effect. The listed structures remain dominant in the view due to their materiality and form. 48 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 58 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW D View from the intersection of Hardwick Street and Rosebury Avenue
EXISTING PROPOSED
View from the intersection of Hardwick Street and Rosebury Avenue towards the subject site. The Grade II* listed New The subject site with proposed extension as seen from the intersection of Hardwick street and Rosebury avenue. The River Head (formerly Metropolitan Water Board Offices) built between 1915-20 is seen in the foreground to the right, prosed extension is clearly inconspicuous and barely visible in the present view. The view has also been captured during while Nos. 5-8 Hardwick Street, contemporary four storied building is seen to the left. Hydra building is seen in the the height of winter so the view would normally benefit from screening by high level vegetation. background between the two storied No. 9 Hardwick Street and Charles Rowan Building. The open plot with vegetation seen between New River Head and No. 9 Hardwick street would have been part of the New River complex with its filtering CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW tanks, but is now private as used as gardens for the residents of the former. The proposed extension is barely visible in this view, and shielded by the tree The streetscape reveals a variety of architectural styles- the 1920s Edwardian New River Head and Expressionist Charles foliage for most part of the year. It does not materially affect the Grade II* listed Rowan House and the contemporary Nos 5-8 Hardwick Street. Due to the open space on the northern face of Hardwick Neutral New river Head (foreground right) or the Charles Rowan house (background). street, there appears to be no uniform streetscape character or design. The scale and proportions of buildings also varies However since the precinct according to their style and period of construction, as does their facing material.
Receptor sensitivity: High TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE
WITH LOW VALUE WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm
The Grade II* Listed New River Head building is seen to the right (foreground), while the Grade II Charles With medium magnitude of MEDIUM-HIGH Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm Rowan House is seen in the background. impact
With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm The view is of significance since it looks towards the New River Head site and shows at least two listed MEDIUM buildings Conclusions: The view is of significance due to its High receptor sensitivity and also due to the Grade II* listed building seen in the view. However, the proposed extension is inconspicuous and does not deter the character or setting of the listed buildings. Therefore the overall impact to this view is Minor adverse. Adds interest to the skyline, the additional height is not harmful and the Heritage assets still dominate the skyline.
49 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 59 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW 1 View from the intersection of Amwell Street and Margery Street
EXISTING PROPOSED
Viewed from the intersection of Amwell Street and Margery Street, the subject site- Hydra building is seen in the The proposal is inconspicuous seen from this view due to the proposed storey is stepped back with offsets on all sides. In center. The Charles Rowan building is seen on the right in the foreground, its dominant verticality apparent but not the summer months, the tree would completely block view towards the extension, whereas in other months it is barely central to the view. The four storied Nos. 1-2 Hydra Street with their brick faced exteriors is seen in the background. visible. From this view, the extension does not affect the visual integrity of the Grade II listed Charles Rowan house to the right. The area of the site enclosed by a compound wall, in the foreground to the left was originally part of the New River Head Water Works, and though contains listed buildings of great significance, is not accessible to the general public. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW
This view is significant since it looks towards the edge of New River Conservation Area from Amwell street with Hydra The proposed extension is barely visible in this view due to its design and form. building and Charles Rowan house forming the boundary. Beyond is the Rosebury Street Conservation Area. Negligible Moreover, it is shielded from view by the tree foliage for most of the year. In this Receptor sensitivity: Medium view, it does not affect the historic character of listed buildings.
VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE
The Grade II listed Charles Rowan House is seen to the right, however this is not its principal view or WITH LOW VALUE Low WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE façade and little of the building’s aesthetics is discernible in this view. With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm
VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE With medium magnitude of Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm impact Medium- High This view looking towards Rosebury Avenue is part of the Views identified by the Islington With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm
Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm
Conclusions: Though this view reveals a listed building, it is a very secondary view which does not do justice to the heritage characteristics or significance of the building. The proposed extension itself is not clearly seen due to the design and the sloping topography of this site. Therefore the overall impact of this view is minor adverse.
50 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 60 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW 2 Viewed from Wilmington square
EXISTING PROPOSED
Viewed from Wilmington square, which has a number of listed properties in its periphery, the subject site is seen to the The proposed extension is only just visible in this view, owing to its form and design-offset from the parapet line. centre of the view, with Grade II listed Charles Rowan House to the left which dominates the view, though not at the Moreover, as seen, the view does not impact the setting or visual integrity of the Grade II listed Charles Rowan house to focal point and unlisted St. Paul’s View to the right. No 9 Hardwick Street is seen just behind the subject site. the left.
This view showing Merlin street is the dividing line between New River Conservation Area (left) and Rosebury Avenue CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW Conservation Area (right). The proposed extension is barely visible in this view due to its design and form. It Merlin Street has been provided with historic streetlights and flagstone paved footpaths, moreover it preserves much Negligible is not detrimental to the heritage significance of the listed building. of its original cast-iron railings around historic properties which enhance its historic character. However, the street does not preserve a uniform architectural vocabulary, with different colors of brick facing and finishes being applied as a testimony to the varying age of buildings in this view. TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE The horizontality of Hydra building contrasts with the verticality of Charles Rowan House and the terraces.
WITH LOW VALUE Receptor sensitivity: High WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm
With medium magnitude of VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm impact To the left is the Grade II listed Charles Rowan House, while the unlisted St. Paul’s View is seen Medium-High With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm to the right. Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE Conclusions: This view is of significance since the listed Charles Rowan House is prominently seen and also the Receptor sensitivity is High. The proposed extension however is not clearly conspicuous within this view due to its design and scale. The Receptor Sensitivity of the site is high, and there is a listed building seen in this view. Considering these, the overall impact to this view is Moderate. Medium-High Therefore, the value of this View is Medium-High.
51 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 61 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW 3 A view of the site from St. Peter and St. Pauls
EXISTING PROPOSED
A view of the site from St. Peter and St. Pauls Grade II listed church on Amwell Street. Hydra building seen to the centre The proposed extension does not detract from the visual character of the area or the streetscape. Since the proposed reveals four prominent storeyes with an additional storey being recessed from the main building line. The overt extension is considerably offset from the parapet walls, its visual impact is minimal. The extension is not detrimental to the horizontality of the parapets are a strident contributor to the view. setting of listed buildings in this view- namely the Charles Rowan house to the left and the Georgian terraces in the background. The brick faced St. Paul’s view is seen to the left while Nos. 1-2 Hardwick Street, a brick faced four storey building is seen to the right. The Grade II listed Charles Rowan House with its red brick facing is seen at the left, beyond St Paul’s view from where the street leads north towards No. 35 Amwell Street- a contemporary four storey building with an CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW additional storey on the roof. The Grade II listed school building is seen beyond. The proposed extension is barely visible in this view due to its design and form This view from Rosebury Avenue Conservation Area towards New River Conservation Area reveals the extent of urban Negligible and also owing to the sloping nature of the streetscape. It is not detrimental to transformation in the precinct including buildings with different styles and materials, constructed in different periods the heritage significance of the listed building. as part of the streetscape. This view further reveals that the site topography ascends northwards towards the view. TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE Receptor sensitivity: High
WITH LOW VALUE WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm
Part of the Grade II listed Charles Rowan House and the listed Terraces on Amwell Street are With medium magnitude of Medium Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm seen. impact
With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm The Receptor Sensitivity of the site is high and two listed buildings are seen in this view. However Medium these view of both Charles Rowan House and the Georgian terraces are not evocative of their Conclusions: The view is of medium importance due to a number of listed buildings seen in this view and the receptor heritage characteristics. sensitivity being High. However, the proposed extension is barely visible in this view due to its stepped-back design and overall scale. Therefore, overall the extension only has a minor effect on this view.
52 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 62 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW 4 View from Hardwick Street
EXISTING PROPOSED
Seen from Hardwick Street, the subject site- Hydra building is seen to the right, just beyond the yellow stock brick faced The proposed extension is viewed as a third tier, offset from the existing building form. Due to its form and siting, it does two storied No. 9. To the left are Nos 3-4 and 1-2 Hardwick street (in that order) whereas the Grade II listed Charles not detract from the overall visual aesthetic of the streetscape. This is the only view where the form and siting of the Rowan House is seen in the background. proposal are obvious, but are still only seen partially. There is an addition to the skyline, but this is modest, and it does not detract from the dominant features of the streetscape. This view reveals an uneven building line in terms of the streetscape with properties between two to five stories seen. Additionally, buildings from different periods, built in different styles and using different shades of brick facing are CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW seen. The proposed extension is visible as a tiered level on the building, recessed from The Hydra building exerts a strident horizontality, somewhat reinforced by the cornice and string course of No 9. These Minor Adverse exaggerate the perspective focus which is terminated by the vibrant verticality of Charles Rowan House. While the tall all sides, but partially visible from Hardwick Street ground storey of No. 9 has some affinity with that, the bland and disparate façade of the Hydra Building contributes little or nothing to the streetscape. TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE
WITH LOW VALUE Receptor sensitivity: High WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm
VALUE OF THE HERITAGE ASSETS IN THE VIEW With medium magnitude of Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm impact The Grade II listed Charles Rowan House is seen in the background. No. 9 Hardwick street is an Medium With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm unlisted early 20thC building on the right (foreground) Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm VALUE/IMPORTANCE OF THE VIEW AS A WHOLE Conclusions: The significance of the view is medium since a listed building is seen in this view, in the background. The proposed extension is visible as a tier over the present building, but does not detract from the setting of the listed Medium The receptor sensitivity is High and Charles Rowan House is prominently seen in this view. building. Therefore, the extension has a moderate effect on the overall view.
53 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 63 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture) VIEW 5 View from the New River Heritage Trail
EXISTING PROPOSED
The site is landlocked by the a peripheral wall and the public right of way to the New River Path through Myddleton We have attempted access to the site by requesting for permission from the Islington Council and Thames Water. passage has been closed off, meaning that no views from inside the site can be enjoyed. However, there has been no positive response to our multiple attempts.
However this is a significant view since it overlooks the historic site of New River Head and listed buildings in the CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT ON HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN A VIEW complex including the rear of Hydra building.
We advise that the Client endeavours to gain access in order to view the proposals from the rear in the approximate location shown (View 5 on the Key map)
Receptor sensitivity: High TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT AGAINST VALUE
WITH LOW VALUE Note: WITH HIGH VALUE WITH MEDIUM VALUE
Though we have repeatedly tried to access the site, the gate leading to the New River Heritage Trail has been locked and With high magnitude of impact Major harm Major harm Moderate harm not accessible. This was followed by emails and phone conversations with Thames Water without any positive response. With medium magnitude of Major harm Moderate harm Minor harm impact Since it has been this difficult for a private individual or professional body to access the site, it appears almost impossible that general public would be able to gain access to view the site from that vantage. With low magnitude of impact Moderate harm Minor harm Negligible harm
Negligible/ neutral impact Negligible harm Negligible harm Negligible harm
54 ©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 64 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
HA APPENDIX 8: IMPACT ON EACH LISTED BUILDING Number Listed Building Grade Impact of Proposed development 1 Charles Rowan House II Minor adverse impact on the Listed and Attached Iron building Railings
2 Numbers 9, 11 And 13 II Negligible impact on the listed building And Attached Railings 3 Roman Catholic II Negligible impact on the listed building Church Of St Peter And St Paul 4 Numbers 3 And 5 And II Negligible impact on the listed building Attached Railings 5 Finsbury Town Hall II* No impact on the listed building 6 New River Head II* Negligible impact on the Listed building (former Metropolitan Water Board offices) 7 New River Head II No impact on the Listed building Revetment of Old Inner or Round Reservoir Pound 8 New River Head II No impact on the Listed feature Chimney Conduit (Devil's Conduit) in the Round Reservoir 9 New River Head II No impact on the Listed building Research Building (Thames Water) 10 Wall, Extending for II Minor impact on the listed feature Circa 90 Metres Westwards from Arlington Way 11 Former Engine House II Negligible impact on the listed building and attached boiler houses and coal store, New River Head 12 Windmill base, New II Negligible impact on the listed building River Head 13 Clerkenwell Church of II No impact on the Listed building England Primary School 14 Numbers 32-42 (Even) II Negligible impact on the listed buildings and Attached Railings 15 Number 27, 29 And 31 II No impact on the Listed buildings and Attached Railings
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 65 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
HA APPENDIX 9: MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY BUILDINGS IN THE VICINITY
8
7
4 9
1 3
2 1- Nos 34-35 Margery Street 2- Merlin’s court 3- Insurance House 6 4- Charles Allen House 5- 151 Rosebery Avenue 5 6- No 90 Rosebery Avenue 7- Nautilus building 8- Sadlers Well Theatre 9- Wells House
Figure 43: Map of New River Head Area showing Modern and Contemporary buildings in the Vicinity of the Subject Site
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 66 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
Figure 45: No. 30 Margery Street (Merlin’s Court)
Figure 44: Nos 34-35 Margery Street No. 30 Margery Street is located on the intersection of Margery and Naoroji Streets, and just north of the Grade II listed Charles Rowan house. Built in the early 21stC, this five storeyed building is located just NW of the subject site on Amwell Street and adjacent to the Grade II listed Charles Rowan house. This four storeyed brick faced building is designed in a contemporary style. The corner on Naoroji Street is provided with balcones supported on a prominent metal frame. The ground floor is plastered and painted over and has The building is designed with a contemporary aesthetic and its façade is finished with stock bricks and has cladding characteristic slit windows. and glazing. The topmost floor, follows the footprint of the lower floor and is finished in plaster and provided with large glazed openings. The staircase block, prominent on Margery Street elevation is provided with cladding in a deep blue color. This building is located on the Amwell Street view and since it is on higher ground than the subject site, is even more clearly legible within the immediate urban landscape.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 67 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
Figure 46: Insurance House Insurance House on Naoroji Street is an interesting example of additions to a historic building. The five storeyed building with sloping roof to the left, contrasts with the curtain walled extension in the centre and the brick faced building to the right. The roofline of the building is also diverse with steeply sloping gables, flat roofs with terrace as well as hipped roof.
Figure 47: Charles Allen House Charles Allen house, located on Amwell Street, is a seven-storeyed modernist tower block, situated immediately north and within the New River Head Outer area. Its boundary wall is in close proximity with the Grade II listed Engine house
and Windmill base, both from the early to mid- 18thC. Built in the 1960s, it is faced with red bricks and provided with large glazed windows. Charles Allen House introduces a newer benchmark of scale within the precinct. Within the streetscape of Amwell Street, it is also one of the few buildings recessed from the streetscape and provided with a garden frontage.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 68 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
Figure 48: No 151 Rosebery avenue Located prominently on Rosebery Avenue, this contemporary edifice is provided with curtain wall glazing and is five stories tall. Parts of the façade facing Rosebery Avenue and much of the other facades are provided with synthetic cladding. The building is located opposite the Grade II* Finsbury Town hall.
Figure 49: No 90 Rosebery Avenue This contemporary eight-storeyed building on Rosebery Avenue has an imposing façade and a roof top extension. It sits in close proximity to the Grade II* New River Head and Finsbury Town Hall. Faced in red brick with vertical strip fenestration, it introduces a different scale and aesthetic to the precinct.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 69 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
Figure 51: Nautilus building Built in 2001-03, Nautilus building sits adjacent to the Grade II listed Laboratory building. It is a six-storeyed building Figure 50: No 90 Rosebery Avenue with a contemporary aesthetic and is faced with red brick. It is located within the New River Head Outer site, in the vicinity of other listed buildings. The rear building, centred around a courtyard is between 3 to 7 stories tall. Faced predominantly in red brick, the building has large glazed openings and other contemporary elements including cantilevered parapets.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 70 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
Figure 52: Sadlers Well Theatre The building, dating from the late 1990s, is a successor of the theatre that has stood on the site since the mid 17thC. A Figure 53: Wells House multi-storeyed building, built in a contemporary style and aesthetic and using a wide palette of materials. It is located Built in the post-war decades, on a site originally occupied by terrace houses (bombed during the war), these eight- on Rosebery Avenue within the New River Conservation area and in close proximity to the Grade II* New River Head. storey residential tower blocks are designed in a modernist style. Set on their ground floor pilotis, red brick faced façade, large verandah balconies and flat roof they have introduced a different typology, scale and character to the precinct.
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 71 The Hydra Building, 10 Hardwick Street, Islington, LONDON, EC1R 4UG December 2017 APPENDICES TO APPELANT STATEMENT (Heritage Architecture)
APPENDIX 10: VERIFIED VIEWS AND METHODOLOGY
(D3V DESIGN VISUALISATION)
©Stephen Levrant: Heritage Architecture Ltd 72 The Hydra Building Accurate Visual Representations and Methodology
For Stephen Levrant Heritage Architecture Ltd December 2017
73 Contents Methodology statement 03 Location Plan 06 View Information 07 AVR images 08
Project contact: Matt Doncaster
t: 020 7060 2973 e: [email protected] w: www.d3v.co.uk
74 The Hydra Building AVR 3 Methodology Statement
1.0 Methodology Overview 2.0 Photography Camera and Lens Set Up
Reconnaissance 2.5 The high resolution digital photography used by D3V was captured using a full frame Canon Digital SLR 5D MkII high 1.1 This document describes the methodology applied by 2.1 Stephen Levrant Heritage Architecture Ltd provided D3V resolution digital camera and Canon’s ‘L’ series professional D3V Limited to produce accurate visual representations for with assessment point descriptions along with locations and lenses which produce high quality images. the proposed development of the Hydra Building. The AVR the view directions indicated on an OS plan. This was used to high resolution images are supplied separately to this undertake a photographic reconnaissance to identify any 2.6 For local views a wide angle lens of 24mm (HFOV of 74°) document. Guidance has been taken from Appendix C of the obstructions or problems with the proposed views. From or 28mm (HFOV of 66°) focal length was used in order to London View Management Framework: Supplementary each position, a digital photograph was taken looking in the capture as much of the proposal and its surroundings as Planning Guidance March 2012. As well as relevant sections direction of the proposed development. Its position was possible. Intermediate and long distance views were from Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact assessment noted, along with field observations and a second digital photographed with a standard 35mm (HFOV of 55°) or 50mm produced by The Landscape Institute with the Institute of photograph of a location marker. This preliminary study (HFOV of 40°) focal length. Environmental Management and Assessment Second Edition allowed the project team to agree the view location and London 2002. direction for final photography. 2.7 The camera was mounted on a tripod at an eye level of approx. 1.6m within a 50mm tolerance. A tripod with a 3-way 1.2 Specific assessment point locations around the site were Appropriate Field of View head, allowing a full range of adjustment and incorporating pre-defined by the project team and provided to D3V. This bubble levels was used. The dual-axis levels enable a was used by D3V to carry out a preliminary study to identify 2.2 There is no definitive camera and lens set up that can be photograph to be taken with horizontal line of sight and the view towards the development from which an used for all photomontage work to capture the individual horizon which ensures vertical elements of the photographed informative photograph could be taken. Once the location perception of a scene and how we experience the view. scene remain perpendicular to the horizon which is also and view had been agreed by the project team, final desirable to achieve accurate camera matching within the 3D photography was undertaken of the view and the camera “A choice has to be made between showing the detail of a model later in the process. location and various view features were recorded precisely by proposal in the greatest clarity and placing it into a the surveyor, using a combination of GPS techniques and meaningful context” Final Photography conventional observations. LVMF SPG Appendix C 2012 2.9 Each view was photographed using the aforementioned 1.3 Using design information provided by the project team camera set up. To accurately identify the view location the D3V created a 3D model of the proposed development. This A built up street scene taken with a standard lens of 50mm centre point of the camera was marked or recorded using a was used along with the data recorded by the surveyor to focal length on a 35mm camera and 40° HFOV (Horizontal plumb line to denote the centre point of the viewing position create a computer generated image that would exactly field of view) is not going to be able to capture enough on the ground. A digital photograph record showing the overlay the appropriate photograph. The photograph could context to be meaningful and therefore use of only 40° HFOV marker and camera tripod in situ was taken to allow the then be divided into foreground and background elements in lenses is not useful. surveyor to identify its location for surveying. relation to the proposed development and when combined with the computer generated image, give an accurate 2.3 Photographs taken with wider angle lenses such as those 2.10 Along with the photographic record the camera height, impression of the impact of the proposed development on with a HFOV in the region of 74° (24mm focal length on a lens used, and time and date that each photograph was taken the selected view in terms of scale, location and where 35mm camera) are appropriate in built up street streetscapes was recorded. These would be used to accurately recreate requested the use of materials. if usefully annotated, and can be meaningful to those the virtual camera and lighting conditions in the computer assessing, adding peripheral information which portrays our model. actual experience of a scene more accurately.
2.4 Ideally the photomontage would be reviewed in combination with a site based assessment. 75 The Hydra Building AVR 4 Methodology Statement
2.11 For each view, a range of photographs were taken in 3.6 The Surveying equipment used by the surveyor was a 4.7 The virtual camera was then configured to render the 3D RAW file format. These were reviewed and a photograph Leica 1205+ R400 Total station and Leica Viva GPS Rover. model at the same resolution as the photograph of the selected for each view that was to be developed as an AVR. original view. This was then composited with the photograph This was processed and adjusted digitally for both high detail 4.0 Creation of Computer Generated Images in post-production. and colour accuracy. The adjusted digital image was then ready to be used in the camera matching process and a JPEG 4.1 The process of how a CGI (Computer Generated Image) of 4.8 Where a Tilt and Shift lens was used to Photograph a version of the image formed part of the brief sent to the the proposed development was created is explained below. view perspective lines of view features were marked on the surveyor. Photograph to ascertain vanishing points and allow the 3D Model horizon to be identified . This allowed the background plate 3.0 GPS Survey size to be recalculated and allow the virtual camera to be 4.2 All plans, elevations and design information regarding the adjusted to the 3D Alignment points as described above. 3.1 A survey brief was prepared, consisting of each views proposed development were supplied to D3V in digital format photograph to be surveyed, an assessment point location by Edward Williams Architects. D3V created a 3D computer Rendering map and location reference photographs. model of the proposed development based on the information supplied. 4.9 Rendering is the process by which the 3D software 3.2 Cadmap Survey Services were contracted as surveyors. calculates the effect of the camera view, the lighting and the They undertook the survey of each views camera location, as 4.3 The 3D model was aligned with the OS Site plan provided applied materials on the 3D model and creates a rendered marked on the ground beneath the camera, along with a by Edward Williams Architects.. By using a transformation perspective image. In the production of AVR’s, this rendered spread of 10-15 alignment points in the view. The alignment between the 3D model and the OSGB36 National grid and image can then be composited with a photograph in post- points being features of the built environment visible in the vertical datum based on the OS Newlyn Datum, the model, production to create a CGI of the proposed development. The views photograph such as the corner of a window opening or the survey data and other data sets were combined into a complexity of the rendering configuration is determined by the top of a lamp post. These included points close to the consistent spatial reference framework. the level of visual properties needed to represent the level of camera as well as those close to the target. the AVR required. This could be a wireline render suitable for Camera Matching Process AVR1 to ‘photorealistic’ rendering for AVR3 standard. 3.3 Using differential GPS techniques, the surveyor established the location of at least two inter-visible stations 4.4 A virtual camera based on the real camera and lens 4.10 D3V obtained details from the architect regarding the in the vicinity of the camera location. From these the local combination used to photograph each view was created proposed materials to be used prior to the rendering process. survey stations, the alignment points were surveyed using within the 3D software 3D Max. This was positioned in the 3D This information was used to produce material definitions conventional observation. model using the surveyed camera location and height. that were applied to the 3D model to best approximate the representation of proposed materials, transparency, and 3.4 The resulting survey points were amalgamated into a 4.5 From the point set supplied by the surveyor, D3V created reflection of the surrounding environment in the CGI. single point set by the surveyor. This data set was 3D alignment points in the 3D software by placing inverted transformed and re-projected into OSGB36 (National Grid) cones at the co-ordinates of each views surveyed alignment 4.11 The same detailed 3D model and applied material coordinates and height data using the OS Newlyn Datum. points. definitions was used for all views of the proposed development, giving a consistent level of detail for all 3.5 The data set was supplied to D3V as written descriptions, 4.6 The photograph of the view to be matched was attached rendered views. coordinates and height level data in Excel format and as 3D to the virtual camera as a background plate. This was used to data in DWG file format. The surveyed view information was adjust the virtual camera so that the 3D alignment points also supplied as PDF/Image files, detailing the observed would align with the surveyed alignment points of features alignment points overlaid on to each views photograph. on the background plate photograph, therefore verifying a match between the virtual camera and the photograph.
76 The Hydra Building AVR 5 Methodology Statement
4.12 A lighting simulation was used based on latitude, 5.2 For each existing and proposed AVR image, markings have longitude, building orientation and date and time, to been applied to perimeter of the image. The triangular determine the correct location of the sun within the 3D markings indicate the centre of the image by marking the computer model for each individual view. horizontal and vertical optical axis of the original photograph The graduations marked away from the optical axis indicate 4.13 The 3D software was then configured to create a high increments of 1 and 10 degrees of the field of view. resolution rendering based on the detailed model and its applied materials, the virtual camera specification, and the 5.3 Tilt and Shift lens Photographs can be identified as the lighting simulation indicative of the proposed buildings horizontal axis is marked in blue and lies below the centre appearance when viewed under the lighting conditions of the horizontal axis of the photograph. selected views photograph. 5.4 For each AVR1 image the proposed development massing Post-Production is shown as an occluded red wire line.
4.14 The photomontage of the rendered image and the 5.6 If the proposed development or a neighbouring original photograph was created using imaging software, consented scheme is completely hidden by vegetation or Adobe Photoshop®. buildings they are represented by dotted lines with no fill.
4.15 The camera-matched rendered image of the 3D model 5.7 Any exceptions to the methodology as described was inserted and overlaid on to the views photograph and previously are clearly identified on the appropriate views carefully studied to identify background and foreground page. elements to the proposed development.
4.16 The different elements of the photograph and the rendered image were then appropriately masked or extracted to different layers so that they could be combined together to create the final CGI for use as an accurate visual representation
5.0 Documentation
5.1 The remainder of this document shows the existing and proposed AVR images for each assessment point view. Additionally on each existing view page, the location plans, camera location reference photographs and camera and photograph data are also included for the view.
77 The Hydra Building AVR 6 Assessment Point Locations
V08
V06
V07
View Description of View 01 View from junction of Margery Street and V01 Amwell Street 02 View from Wilmington square down Merlin V09 street View from Amwell St near St Peter and St V04 03 Pauls Church 04 View from Hardwick Street 05 View – non verified TBC View from Junction of Amwell St and Lloyd 06/A Baker St V03 View from Amwell St near gate to former 07/B Engine House 08/C View near corner of Myddleton Passage View towards the junction of Hardwick Street V02 09/D and Rosebery Avenue
78 The Hydra Building AVR 7 View Information
Elevation Camera Lens Focal View Description of View AVR Photo Reference Easting Northing (AOD) m Height Length HFOV Date Time 01 View from junction of Margery Street and Amwell Street AVR 3 HYDR-V01-IMG_3290 531205.997 182704.862 28.82m 1.6m 24 mm 73.7° 24/11/2017 13:09 02 View from Wilmington square down Merlin street AVR 3 HYDR-V02-IMG_3401 531211.706 182612.629 23.70m 1.6m 28 mm 65.5° 24/11/2017 14:24 03 View from Amwell St near St Peter and St Pauls Church AVR 3 HYDR-V03-IMG_3438 531269.938 182629.093 24.59m 1.6m 24 mmTS 73.7° 24/11/2017 14:40 04 View from Hardwick Street AVR 3 HYDR-V04-IMG_3462 531319.269 182672.076 26.07m 1.6m 24 mm 73.7° 24/11/2017 14:52 06/A View from Junction of Amwell St and Lloyd Baker St AVR 1 HYDR-V06-IMG_3349 531175.120 182803.932 31.94m 1.6m 24 mm 73.7° 24/11/2017 13:39 07/B View from Amwell St near gate to former Engine House AVR 1 HYDR-V07-IMG_3313 531202.322 182756.399 30.44m 1.6m 24 mm 73.7° 24/11/2017 13:20 08/C View near corner of Myddleton Passage AVR 1 HYDR-V08-IMG_3380 531306.900 182832.717 30.45m 1.6m 35 mm 54.4° 24/11/2017 14:02 09/D View towards the junction of Hardwick Street and Rosebery AVR 1 HYDR-V09-IMG_3500 531410.282 182697.259 25.61m 1.6m 35 mm 54.4° 24/11/2017 15:08 Avenue
View Thumbnail Reference
View01 View02 View03 View04
View06 View07 View08 View09
79 The Hydra Building AVR 8 View 01 View from junction of Margery Street and Amwell Street
V01 Site
View Location map
V01
View as existing View Location map local
Photo Ref : HDYR-V01-IMG_3500 Easting : 531205.997 Northing : 182704.862 Elevation : 28.82 m Camera Ht : 1.6 m Lens : 24 mm HFOV : 73.7° Date : 24/11/2017 Time : 15:08
80